Overcrowding and lack of space in Ward 3 Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get rid of PK in Ward 3 - and curtail OOB - then I think the rest of the city should reciprocate: No Ward 3 PK3-4 squatting in our schools.

If OOB spots are available (and they should only be made available where there is excess capacity), any child in DC is eligible to lottery for it. Just because a child lives in a ward with overcrowded schools with little to no OOB capacity doesn't mean they can't lottery for available OOB spots elsewhere. And your idea is even more delusional if you want to apply it to city-wide charters. Do you consider those "your" schools as well?

It is certainly true that most people in Ward 3 don't *need* free PK, but neither do the middle and upper middle class gentrifiers and long-term residents EOTP. So there is really no economic argument either to support your resentment-driven ideas, unless you want to introduce means-tested access to PK city-wide.

+1. If PP wants to go to 'their' schools IB, they can, with priority in PK3 and PK4 over OOBs from WOTP and anywhere else. So what's this "squatting" that PP feels harmed by? Bizarre.

(Oops, quoted wrong post. Meant to respond to this.)

There is one person on this board who is obsessed with this 'issue' and keeps calling children from WOTP who attend PK EOTP "squatters".

I've seen it destabilize early ES when the PKers return to their neighborhood school for K. The kids who take their places did not go through PK, are nowhere near as ready to learn as the kids who attended PK3 & 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get rid of PK in Ward 3 - and curtail OOB - then I think the rest of the city should reciprocate: No Ward 3 PK3-4 squatting in our schools.

If OOB spots are available (and they should only be made available where there is excess capacity), any child in DC is eligible to lottery for it. Just because a child lives in a ward with overcrowded schools with little to no OOB capacity doesn't mean they can't lottery for available OOB spots elsewhere. And your idea is even more delusional if you want to apply it to city-wide charters. Do you consider those "your" schools as well?

It is certainly true that most people in Ward 3 don't *need* free PK, but neither do the middle and upper middle class gentrifiers and long-term residents EOTP. So there is really no economic argument either to support your resentment-driven ideas, unless you want to introduce means-tested access to PK city-wide.

+1. If PP wants to go to 'their' schools IB, they can, with priority in PK3 and PK4 over OOBs from WOTP and anywhere else. So what's this "squatting" that PP feels harmed by? Bizarre.

(Oops, quoted wrong post. Meant to respond to this.)

There is one person on this board who is obsessed with this 'issue' and keeps calling children from WOTP who attend PK EOTP "squatters".

I've seen it destabilize early ES when the PKers return to their neighborhood school for K. The kids who take their places did not go through PK, are nowhere near as ready to learn as the kids who attended PK3 & 4.

Not different from the "destabilization" that occurs on a much larger scale through EOTP families who bail for greener pastures after PK4 or K. WOTP "squatting" is a strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get rid of PK in Ward 3 - and curtail OOB - then I think the rest of the city should reciprocate: No Ward 3 PK3-4 squatting in our schools.

If OOB spots are available (and they should only be made available where there is excess capacity), any child in DC is eligible to lottery for it. Just because a child lives in a ward with overcrowded schools with little to no OOB capacity doesn't mean they can't lottery for available OOB spots elsewhere. And your idea is even more delusional if you want to apply it to city-wide charters. Do you consider those "your" schools as well?

It is certainly true that most people in Ward 3 don't *need* free PK, but neither do the middle and upper middle class gentrifiers and long-term residents EOTP. So there is really no economic argument either to support your resentment-driven ideas, unless you want to introduce means-tested access to PK city-wide.

+1. If PP wants to go to 'their' schools IB, they can, with priority in PK3 and PK4 over OOBs from WOTP and anywhere else. So what's this "squatting" that PP feels harmed by? Bizarre.

(Oops, quoted wrong post. Meant to respond to this.)

There is one person on this board who is obsessed with this 'issue' and keeps calling children from WOTP who attend PK EOTP "squatters".

I've seen it destabilize early ES when the PKers return to their neighborhood school for K. The kids who take their places did not go through PK, are nowhere near as ready to learn as the kids who attended PK3 & 4.

And I've seen it where people like you and decent EOTP or charter bail in 3rd-5th grade and leave a huge gap as well. What difference does it make? A kid not reading in Kinder is not nearly as bad as leaving a void of a kid in 4th grade that is 3 grades behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.

Maybe all three steps are necessary ... First, reduce OOB students who have somehow lotteried into overcrowded schools. Second, if removing OOB students doesn't eliminate overcrowding, then shrink the boundaries. Third, if the first two steps don't work, then build new capacity. Makes sense to approach in that order because removing OOB students can be done within 1 year. Shrinking boundaries ought, in fairness, to be done with at least 2-3 years notice. Building new capacity is a very complex and expensive step that could take 7-15 years or more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.

Maybe all three steps are necessary ... First, reduce OOB students who have somehow lotteried into overcrowded schools. Second, if removing OOB students doesn't eliminate overcrowding, then shrink the boundaries. Third, if the first two steps don't work, then build new capacity. Makes sense to approach in that order because removing OOB students can be done within 1 year. Shrinking boundaries ought, in fairness, to be done with at least 2-3 years notice. Building new capacity is a very complex and expensive step that could take 7-15 years or more.

Somehow lotteried?? -- they played by the rules governing school choice, and the principals at the schools they attend were the ones who decided how many spaces were open. The same way that there was grandfathering for people whose feeder pattern changed, DC should not uproot these families in one year. It's disruptive and not in students' best interest.

There are no quick fixes -- this will be resolved in a few years. In the meantime add trailers if necessary. DCPS class sizes are still far smaller than those in Mont Co. This is not a crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.

Maybe all three steps are necessary ... First, reduce OOB students who have somehow lotteried into overcrowded schools. Second, if removing OOB students doesn't eliminate overcrowding, then shrink the boundaries. Third, if the first two steps don't work, then build new capacity. Makes sense to approach in that order because removing OOB students can be done within 1 year. Shrinking boundaries ought, in fairness, to be done with at least 2-3 years notice. Building new capacity is a very complex and expensive step that could take 7-15 years or more.

Somehow lotteried?? -- they played by the rules governing school choice, and the principals at the schools they attend were the ones who decided how many spaces were open. The same way that there was grandfathering for people whose feeder pattern changed, DC should not uproot these families in one year. It's disruptive and not in students' best interest.

There are no quick fixes -- this will be resolved in a few years. In the meantime add trailers if necessary. DCPS class sizes are still far smaller than those in Mont Co. This is not a crisis.

Maybe on average, but the 26 students in Janney classes is approaching MoCo levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about Deal and Wilson, and maybe Janney.

Lafayette and Hearst are not crowded. Murch is no longer crowded. They just did a huge boundary adjustment on Murch (huge chunk shifted to Lafayette and moved the south boundary to only 3 blocks away from the school), and they are rebuilding for 100 spaces over current enrollment. Murch will be fine, even with boundary grandfathering. Besides, any adjustments to Murch will not change Deal or Wilson anyway.

If Eaton is crowded, that is their fault for accepting too many OOB students because the school has (or should have) complete control over that, unlike schools that are crowded due to IB enrollment as of right.

Janney's boundary abuts Lafayette, Murch, Hearst, and Mann. The only boundary change that fixes crowding at Janney and Deal in one move is to shift some of Janney to Mann, which is a small school on a a big lot of land. The ripple effect is that it increases the Hardy boundary, which ends up reducing the number of OOB spots available at Hardy, and so possibly the enrollment at Wilson.

Mann, Stoddert and Key are all over-crowded. Stodder turns away in-boundary kids with siblings for pre-K, I think they're the only school in DCPS that does that. Key has over 400 in a school built for 300. None of those schools have significant number of OOB. None have obvious boundary adjustments.

Key's two fifth grade classes are in trailers. Around 15% OOB. There as a proposal in the boundary discussions a couple/few years ago to move a portion of student living beyond Reservoir Rd to Hyde - and the who neighborhood/school freaked out at that. Either the boundary shift or cutting OOB would reduce the #s but neither likely to happen & DCPS celebrates the increased enrollment as a big victory.

Many on this thread are rehashing some issues from the last boundary kerfuffles without knowing them. Most of the involved schools pushed heavily back against proposed boundary changes (including some made no sense - like sending families who lived a block from Murch to Hearst etc). And there's a big commitment to 10-15% OOB for most WOTP schools as part of a larger equity battle, so good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about Deal and Wilson, and maybe Janney.

Lafayette and Hearst are not crowded. Murch is no longer crowded. They just did a huge boundary adjustment on Murch (huge chunk shifted to Lafayette and moved the south boundary to only 3 blocks away from the school), and they are rebuilding for 100 spaces over current enrollment. Murch will be fine, even with boundary grandfathering. Besides, any adjustments to Murch will not change Deal or Wilson anyway.

If Eaton is crowded, that is their fault for accepting too many OOB students because the school has (or should have) complete control over that, unlike schools that are crowded due to IB enrollment as of right.

Janney's boundary abuts Lafayette, Murch, Hearst, and Mann. The only boundary change that fixes crowding at Janney and Deal in one move is to shift some of Janney to Mann, which is a small school on a a big lot of land. The ripple effect is that it increases the Hardy boundary, which ends up reducing the number of OOB spots available at Hardy, and so possibly the enrollment at Wilson.

Mann, Stoddert and Key are all over-crowded. Stodder turns away in-boundary kids with siblings for pre-K, I think they're the only school in DCPS that does that. Key has over 400 in a school built for 300. None of those schools have significant number of OOB. None have obvious boundary adjustments.

Key's two fifth grade classes are in trailers. Around 15% OOB. There as a proposal in the boundary discussions a couple/few years ago to move a portion of student living beyond Reservoir Rd to Hyde - and the who neighborhood/school freaked out at that. Either the boundary shift or cutting OOB would reduce the #s but neither likely to happen & DCPS celebrates the increased enrollment as a big victory.

Many on this thread are rehashing some issues from the last boundary kerfuffles without knowing them. Most of the involved schools pushed heavily back against proposed boundary changes (including some made no sense - like sending families who lived a block from Murch to Hearst etc). And there's a big commitment to 10-15% OOB for most WOTP schools as part of a larger equity battle, so good luck with that.

that's the rub. as long as the schools are grossly overcrowded they'll never need to diversify to take on at risk students who would invariably be OOB. Any deliberate steps to ease overcrowding would reopen that pandora's box in community's eyes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.

Maybe all three steps are necessary ... First, reduce OOB students who have somehow lotteried into overcrowded schools. Second, if removing OOB students doesn't eliminate overcrowding, then shrink the boundaries. Third, if the first two steps don't work, then build new capacity. Makes sense to approach in that order because removing OOB students can be done within 1 year. Shrinking boundaries ought, in fairness, to be done with at least 2-3 years notice. Building new capacity is a very complex and expensive step that could take 7-15 years or more.

Somehow lotteried?? -- they played by the rules governing school choice, and the principals at the schools they attend were the ones who decided how many spaces were open. The same way that there was grandfathering for people whose feeder pattern changed, DC should not uproot these families in one year. It's disruptive and not in students' best interest.

There are no quick fixes -- this will be resolved in a few years. In the meantime add trailers if necessary. DCPS class sizes are still far smaller than those in Mont Co. This is not a crisis.

Hope I didn't offend you. By "somehow lotteried" I was just being vague to cover all the different mechanisms by which a student can get access to an OOB school. For example, you can lottery in at various different grades, or IIRC an older sibling can lottery in and the younger sibling gets preference. There may be other mechanisms too.

If you want to have a slower transition for OOB students, that's fine by me. Just require OOB students to transition as soon as shift from one school to the next. In other words, if you get OOB status via lottery, then your OOB status does not give you feeder rights to the next school.

I'll agree with you that it's not a crisis on the scale of some other problems, but it's definitely a significant problem. Many of these schools are extremely overcapacity, and it's getting more crowded. Kicking the can down the road doesn't help anyone. Someone in DC government needs to take the potentially unpopular, but necessary, steps to solve this problem. As one example, Wilson's capacity is 1490 students, but it's enrollment 2016-17 was 1823. That's 333 students over max capacity, or 22% overcapacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get rid of PK in Ward 3 - and curtail OOB - then I think the rest of the city should reciprocate: No Ward 3 PK3-4 squatting in our schools.

If OOB spots are available (and they should only be made available where there is excess capacity), any child in DC is eligible to lottery for it. Just because a child lives in a ward with overcrowded schools with little to no OOB capacity doesn't mean they can't lottery for available OOB spots elsewhere. And your idea is even more delusional if you want to apply it to city-wide charters. Do you consider those "your" schools as well?

It is certainly true that most people in Ward 3 don't *need* free PK, but neither do the middle and upper middle class gentrifiers and long-term residents EOTP. So there is really no economic argument either to support your resentment-driven ideas, unless you want to introduce means-tested access to PK city-wide.

+1. If PP wants to go to 'their' schools IB, they can, with priority in PK3 and PK4 over OOBs from WOTP and anywhere else. So what's this "squatting" that PP feels harmed by? Bizarre.

(Oops, quoted wrong post. Meant to respond to this.)

There is one person on this board who is obsessed with this 'issue' and keeps calling children from WOTP who attend PK EOTP "squatters".

I've seen it destabilize early ES when the PKers return to their neighborhood school for K. The kids who take their places did not go through PK, are nowhere near as ready to learn as the kids who attended PK3 & 4.

And it's the fault of kids that went to PK that others didn't? Still not following the logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about Deal and Wilson, and maybe Janney.

Lafayette and Hearst are not crowded. Murch is no longer crowded. They just did a huge boundary adjustment on Murch (huge chunk shifted to Lafayette and moved the south boundary to only 3 blocks away from the school), and they are rebuilding for 100 spaces over current enrollment. Murch will be fine, even with boundary grandfathering. Besides, any adjustments to Murch will not change Deal or Wilson anyway.

If Eaton is crowded, that is their fault for accepting too many OOB students because the school has (or should have) complete control over that, unlike schools that are crowded due to IB enrollment as of right.

Janney's boundary abuts Lafayette, Murch, Hearst, and Mann. The only boundary change that fixes crowding at Janney and Deal in one move is to shift some of Janney to Mann, which is a small school on a a big lot of land. The ripple effect is that it increases the Hardy boundary, which ends up reducing the number of OOB spots available at Hardy, and so possibly the enrollment at Wilson.

Mann, Stoddert and Key are all over-crowded. Stodder turns away in-boundary kids with siblings for pre-K, I think they're the only school in DCPS that does that. Key has over 400 in a school built for 300. None of those schools have significant number of OOB. None have obvious boundary adjustments.

Key's two fifth grade classes are in trailers. Around 15% OOB. There as a proposal in the boundary discussions a couple/few years ago to move a portion of student living beyond Reservoir Rd to Hyde - and the who neighborhood/school freaked out at that. Either the boundary shift or cutting OOB would reduce the #s but neither likely to happen & DCPS celebrates the increased enrollment as a big victory.

Many on this thread are rehashing some issues from the last boundary kerfuffles without knowing them. Most of the involved schools pushed heavily back against proposed boundary changes (including some made no sense - like sending families who lived a block from Murch to Hearst etc). And there's a big commitment to 10-15% OOB for most WOTP schools as part of a larger equity battle, so good luck with that.

I'm not sure if this is true? I thought the OOB problem goes something like this example:

1) Number of IB students exceed the number of spots available, let's say for PK4.

2) There is a plan to open a new PK4 class. However, since the exact # of IB students that will enroll isn't known, there is some guesswork here.

3) During initial lottery, PK4 is 90% IB.

4) A few IB families change their minds and decide to keep their kids in daycare another year, or get off the waitlist at a more preferred school.

5) PK4 ends up being 75% IB, with several OOB spots open.

6) Additional IB families decide to join in Kindergarten, which leads to some overcrowding.

What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get rid of PK in Ward 3 - and curtail OOB - then I think the rest of the city should reciprocate: No Ward 3 PK3-4 squatting in our schools.

PK 3 and 4 were started as a way to help disadvantaged children in this city to get up to speed to enter K on level. It was not meant as free daycare for those who can afford it on their own. In most upper NW areas, it's not necessary. Go back to entering school in K only, in upper NW DC, and that might change overcrowding. Most kids in other parts of the city will have already begun in their schools and they won't want to move. Add to that there won't be any space! And if you want free prek, move to those parts of the city that offer it. If you are really being honest, Janney doesn't need it.

That doesn't help Deal and Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get rid of PK in Ward 3 - and curtail OOB - then I think the rest of the city should reciprocate: No Ward 3 PK3-4 squatting in our schools.

If OOB spots are available (and they should only be made available where there is excess capacity), any child in DC is eligible to lottery for it. Just because a child lives in a ward with overcrowded schools with little to no OOB capacity doesn't mean they can't lottery for available OOB spots elsewhere. And your idea is even more delusional if you want to apply it to city-wide charters. Do you consider those "your" schools as well?

It is certainly true that most people in Ward 3 don't *need* free PK, but neither do the middle and upper middle class gentrifiers and long-term residents EOTP. So there is really no economic argument either to support your resentment-driven ideas, unless you want to introduce means-tested access to PK city-wide.

+1. If PP wants to go to 'their' schools IB, they can, with priority in PK3 and PK4 over OOBs from WOTP and anywhere else. So what's this "squatting" that PP feels harmed by? Bizarre.

(Oops, quoted wrong post. Meant to respond to this.)

There is one person on this board who is obsessed with this 'issue' and keeps calling children from WOTP who attend PK EOTP "squatters".

I've seen it destabilize early ES when the PKers return to their neighborhood school for K. The kids who take their places did not go through PK, are nowhere near as ready to learn as the kids who attended PK3 & 4.

And it's the fault of kids that went to PK that others didn't? Still not following the logic.

Agree. If the OOB kids got a spot to begin with, it is because no on IB wanted it. Would an empty seat (no $$) be more stable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about Deal and Wilson, and maybe Janney.

Lafayette and Hearst are not crowded. Murch is no longer crowded. They just did a huge boundary adjustment on Murch (huge chunk shifted to Lafayette and moved the south boundary to only 3 blocks away from the school), and they are rebuilding for 100 spaces over current enrollment. Murch will be fine, even with boundary grandfathering. Besides, any adjustments to Murch will not change Deal or Wilson anyway.

If Eaton is crowded, that is their fault for accepting too many OOB students because the school has (or should have) complete control over that, unlike schools that are crowded due to IB enrollment as of right.

Janney's boundary abuts Lafayette, Murch, Hearst, and Mann. The only boundary change that fixes crowding at Janney and Deal in one move is to shift some of Janney to Mann, which is a small school on a a big lot of land. The ripple effect is that it increases the Hardy boundary, which ends up reducing the number of OOB spots available at Hardy, and so possibly the enrollment at Wilson.

Mann, Stoddert and Key are all over-crowded. Stodder turns away in-boundary kids with siblings for pre-K, I think they're the only school in DCPS that does that. Key has over 400 in a school built for 300. None of those schools have significant number of OOB. None have obvious boundary adjustments.

Key's two fifth grade classes are in trailers. Around 15% OOB. There as a proposal in the boundary discussions a couple/few years ago to move a portion of student living beyond Reservoir Rd to Hyde - and the who neighborhood/school freaked out at that. Either the boundary shift or cutting OOB would reduce the #s but neither likely to happen & DCPS celebrates the increased enrollment as a big victory.

Many on this thread are rehashing some issues from the last boundary kerfuffles without knowing them. Most of the involved schools pushed heavily back against proposed boundary changes (including some made no sense - like sending families who lived a block from Murch to Hearst etc). And there's a big commitment to 10-15% OOB for most WOTP schools as part of a larger equity battle, so good luck with that.

Two things.

There is a strong desire to not have the Ward 3 schools be both the highest achieving and majority white, high SES schools. Over the years, especially when fewer IB families chose DCPS at all, allowing students from OOB has kept the demographics from being so different in Ward 3 than the rest of the city.

It isn't an official commitment or policy you will find written down anywhere, but people on LSATs have said that there has been real pressure on the principals over the years to take a certain number of OOB students. The sheer crush of IB students is making the lowest grades almost exclusively IB now, but not completely.

The 10% notion also echoes David Catania's legislation requiring 10% of seats at high achieving schools be 'set aside' for at risk students from other wards. The Ward 3 schools are very crowded and haven't had to take on these at risk students yet. But as soon as you remove the OOB students now, these at-risk kids will replace them. I personally think it makes a lot of sense.


The Ward 3 elementary schools got a waiver from this because of their crowded psoitions.

So

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about Deal and Wilson, and maybe Janney.

Lafayette and Hearst are not crowded. Murch is no longer crowded. They just did a huge boundary adjustment on Murch (huge chunk shifted to Lafayette and moved the south boundary to only 3 blocks away from the school), and they are rebuilding for 100 spaces over current enrollment. Murch will be fine, even with boundary grandfathering. Besides, any adjustments to Murch will not change Deal or Wilson anyway.

If Eaton is crowded, that is their fault for accepting too many OOB students because the school has (or should have) complete control over that, unlike schools that are crowded due to IB enrollment as of right.

Janney's boundary abuts Lafayette, Murch, Hearst, and Mann. The only boundary change that fixes crowding at Janney and Deal in one move is to shift some of Janney to Mann, which is a small school on a a big lot of land. The ripple effect is that it increases the Hardy boundary, which ends up reducing the number of OOB spots available at Hardy, and so possibly the enrollment at Wilson.

Mann, Stoddert and Key are all over-crowded. Stodder turns away in-boundary kids with siblings for pre-K, I think they're the only school in DCPS that does that. Key has over 400 in a school built for 300. None of those schools have significant number of OOB. None have obvious boundary adjustments.

Key's two fifth grade classes are in trailers. Around 15% OOB. There as a proposal in the boundary discussions a couple/few years ago to move a portion of student living beyond Reservoir Rd to Hyde - and the who neighborhood/school freaked out at that. Either the boundary shift or cutting OOB would reduce the #s but neither likely to happen & DCPS celebrates the increased enrollment as a big victory.

Many on this thread are rehashing some issues from the last boundary kerfuffles without knowing them. Most of the involved schools pushed heavily back against proposed boundary changes (including some made no sense - like sending families who lived a block from Murch to Hearst etc). And there's a big commitment to 10-15% OOB for most WOTP schools as part of a larger equity battle, so good luck with that.

I'm not sure if this is true? I thought the OOB problem goes something like this example:

1) Number of IB students exceed the number of spots available, let's say for PK4.

2) There is a plan to open a new PK4 class. However, since the exact # of IB students that will enroll isn't known, there is some guesswork here.

3) During initial lottery, PK4 is 90% IB.

4) A few IB families change their minds and decide to keep their kids in daycare another year, or get off the waitlist at a more preferred school.

5) PK4 ends up being 75% IB, with several OOB spots open.

6) Additional IB families decide to join in Kindergarten, which leads to some overcrowding.

What am I missing?

You are missing the most obvious and important.

We have a neighborhood-based system.

With plenty of charters for people who don't like their neighborhood option.

No need to steal anyone else's seat.