Van Ness Elementary School Lottery Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a meeting tonight at Van Ness Elementary for those families/children who got matched to Van Ness during round 1 of the lottery. School officials gave the following info:

PS3 - 30 seats matched (14 inbounds kids)
PK4 - 39 seats matched (21 inbounds kids)

They also said that Van Ness IS NOT Title I for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.

This is disheartening when I think about the modernization dollars going towards this school that could be going towards other schools that are already open and serving students. Did it really need to be opened? Less than 1/2 the incoming students are in-bounds. Sure - there may be growth down the line, but this also speaks to a huge need for a better system to distribute modernization dollars and to coordinated capacity planning across DCPS and charter schools.

[Anonymous]

Peabody and SWS do not have Title I status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a meeting tonight at Van Ness Elementary for those families/children who got matched to Van Ness during round 1 of the lottery. School officials gave the following info:

PS3 - 30 seats matched (14 inbounds kids)
PK4 - 39 seats matched (21 inbounds kids)

They also said that Van Ness IS NOT Title I for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.

This is disheartening when I think about the modernization dollars going towards this school that could be going towards other schools that are already open and serving students. Did it really need to be opened? Less than 1/2 the incoming students are in-bounds. Sure - there may be growth down the line, but this also speaks to a huge need for a better system to distribute modernization dollars and to coordinated capacity planning across DCPS and charter schools.

I thought the same thing. Why was a new neighborhood school necessary when it will be half OOB kids? Others schools are bursting at the seams with so many IB students and poor facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a meeting tonight at Van Ness Elementary for those families/children who got matched to Van Ness during round 1 of the lottery. School officials gave the following info:

PS3 - 30 seats matched (14 inbounds kids)
PK4 - 39 seats matched (21 inbounds kids)

They also said that Van Ness IS NOT Title I for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.

This is disheartening when I think about the modernization dollars going towards this school that could be going towards other schools that are already open and serving students. Did it really need to be opened? Less than 1/2 the incoming students are in-bounds. Sure - there may be growth down the line, but this also speaks to a huge need for a better system to distribute modernization dollars and to coordinated capacity planning across DCPS and charter schools.

Per DCPS
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Brent+Elementary+School

Brent has exactly 50% of its students classified as in-bounds.


Van Ness has 35 of its 69 students (50.7%) of its students classified as in-bounds.

Why is this an issue for you?

Does it bother you that Brent has only 50% in-bounds students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a meeting tonight at Van Ness Elementary for those families/children who got matched to Van Ness during round 1 of the lottery. School officials gave the following info:

PS3 - 30 seats matched (14 inbounds kids)
PK4 - 39 seats matched (21 inbounds kids)

They also said that Van Ness IS NOT Title I for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.

This is disheartening when I think about the modernization dollars going towards this school that could be going towards other schools that are already open and serving students. Did it really need to be opened? Less than 1/2 the incoming students are in-bounds. Sure - there may be growth down the line, but this also speaks to a huge need for a better system to distribute modernization dollars and to coordinated capacity planning across DCPS and charter schools.

Per DCPS
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Brent+Elementary+School

Brent has exactly 50% of its students classified as in-bounds.


Van Ness has 35 of its 69 students (50.7%) of its students classified as in-bounds.

Why is this an issue for you?

Does it bother you that Brent has only 50% in-bounds students?

That's no comparison. Brent has dozens of IB children on its waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a meeting tonight at Van Ness Elementary for those families/children who got matched to Van Ness during round 1 of the lottery. School officials gave the following info:

PS3 - 30 seats matched (14 inbounds kids)
PK4 - 39 seats matched (21 inbounds kids)

They also said that Van Ness IS NOT Title I for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.

This is disheartening when I think about the modernization dollars going towards this school that could be going towards other schools that are already open and serving students. Did it really need to be opened? Less than 1/2 the incoming students are in-bounds. Sure - there may be growth down the line, but this also speaks to a huge need for a better system to distribute modernization dollars and to coordinated capacity planning across DCPS and charter schools.

I thought the same thing. Why was a new neighborhood school necessary when it will be half OOB kids? Others schools are bursting at the seams with so many IB students and poor facilities.

For once, DCPS may not be thinking purely in the short-term. Brent is quickly becoming almost exclusively IB and nearly all OOB students added inverness the past few years resulted from the addition of a third classroom at grades K through 3. Neither Brent nor Peabody has anywhere near the required capacity for PK, and upper grade class sizes are creeping upward. The same is true of Maury, and Van Ness is potentially positioned to act as a backstop. Finally, DCPS undoubtedly wants another feeder to boost enriollment at Jefferson.

I have no doubt that IB enrollment will increase as new housing stock continues to be built in the Navy Yard area. I'm not sure how many units will be under the control of the DC Housing Authority, but suspect it will be enough to jump start the upper grades. All things being equal, we're talking about a $2MM capital improvement to an existing DCPS facility that we are fortunate wasn't sold off by Fenty for development. It's a drop in the bucket. Indded, Watkins alone is slated to get more than $30MM. If you have an issue with capital expenditures, direct your ire at the ridiculous sums being spent on high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Does it bother you that Brent has only 50% in-bounds students?

That's no comparison. Brent has dozens of IB children on its waitlist.

What???!!! The PP wasn't making a "comparison". He/she was giving you the actual data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peabody and SWS do not have Title I status.

neither does Watkins or CH Montessori

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to figure out the numbers for K. According to the MySchoolDC dashboard, VN has 15 lottery seats for K, but only 13 of those were matched. It further appears there were only 30 applicants for those 15 spaces, and yet none is listed as being waitlisted. This doesn't seem to make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Does it bother you that Brent has only 50% in-bounds students?

That's no comparison. Brent has dozens of IB children on its waitlist.

What???!!! The PP wasn't making a "comparison". He/she was giving you the actual data.

Data needs to be interpreted "apples to apples". Brent had 39 IB families with sibling preference apply for 30 PK3 seats, with another 30 more IB families without sibling preference left on the WL. Brent also had 16 IB families apply for 6 PK4 seats. The data I would like to learn is the IB capture rate for VN. In other words, how many IB families are opting to enroll elsewhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peabody and SWS do not have Title I status.

neither does Watkins or CH Montessori

Watkins just barely made it with 38% FARMs. Eleven more FARM-eligible students and it would have retained its Title I status.

[Anonymous]

If it turns out not to be Title I, there is going to be a lot less money for stuff--no free before or aftercare, no aides above PK, no partnership with a collaborative to work with families in need (and it is the in-bounds school for two large public housing complexes; there will be families in need of wraparound services). Also no guaranteed admission for in-bounds families in future years. Better hope the PTA gets up and running and starts raising a boatload of funds...and that the families are willing to use the money to pay for stuff to help kids who will otherwise cause behavior challenges and lower test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a meeting tonight at Van Ness Elementary for those families/children who got matched to Van Ness during round 1 of the lottery. School officials gave the following info:

PS3 - 30 seats matched (14 inbounds kids)
PK4 - 39 seats matched (21 inbounds kids)

They also said that Van Ness IS NOT Title I for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.

This is disheartening when I think about the modernization dollars going towards this school that could be going towards other schools that are already open and serving students. Did it really need to be opened? Less than 1/2 the incoming students are in-bounds. Sure - there may be growth down the line, but this also speaks to a huge need for a better system to distribute modernization dollars and to coordinated capacity planning across DCPS and charter schools.

Per DCPS
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Brent+Elementary+School

Brent has exactly 50% of its students classified as in-bounds.


Van Ness has 35 of its 69 students (50.7%) of its students classified as in-bounds.

Why is this an issue for you?

Does it bother you that Brent has only 50% in-bounds students?

Wait and see. First, wait and see what happens on count day, after IB families get into charters and OOB schools, and more seats are taken up by OOB families on the waitlist. Then wait and see in a few years how the upper grades look, considering there are relatively few older kids in the boundary, much of the housing stock is more practical for smaller/younger families, and the feeder pattern is seen as desirable compared to EOTR schools but not compared to Latin/BASIS/DCI/Hardy/Stuart-Hobson. I think the OOB % at VN will rise over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it turns out not to be Title I, there is going to be a lot less money for stuff--no free before or aftercare, no aides above PK, no partnership with a collaborative to work with families in need (and it is the in-bounds school for two large public housing complexes; there will be families in need of wraparound services). Also no guaranteed admission for in-bounds families in future years. Better hope the PTA gets up and running and starts raising a boatload of funds...and that the families are willing to use the money to pay for stuff to help kids who will otherwise cause behavior challenges and lower test scores.

I think you are partly right and partly wrong. First, you are right, without Title I status, the school will be hard pressed for resources unless there is aggressive grant application already in process. Second, DCPS is obligated to fund aides for K regardless of Title I status. Third, new IB hosing for low-income families, in combination with a growing OOB population, may almost certainly be enough to push the school into Title I status. It's not like 100 percent of the PK3 applicants next year will be IB and high-SES. Fourth, I'm not going to dignify racist/classist talking points. In my experience, kids from wealthy backgrounds are just as capable of misbehavior and poor academic achievement as those from poorer households. It's all about the tone and expectations established by families, teachers and administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you are partly right and partly wrong. First, you are right, without Title I status, the school will be hard pressed for resources unless there is aggressive grant application already in process. Second, DCPS is obligated to fund aides for K regardless of Title I status. Third, new IB hosing for low-income families, in combination with a growing OOB population, may almost certainly be enough to push the school into Title I status. It's not like 100 percent of the PK3 applicants next year will be IB and high-SES. Fourth, I'm not going to dignify racist/classist talking points. In my experience, kids from wealthy backgrounds are just as capable of misbehavior and poor academic achievement as those from poorer households. It's all about the tone and expectations established by families, teachers and administration.

Of course children from better off backgrounds have a much better chance at academic success then children living in poor households. There are multitudes of reasons for this, but a study looked at one of the reasons (stress), which affects a child's brain development. Families from more educated backgrounds tend to provide more stimulus for their children at a younger age, which helps brain development, while families from less educated backgrounds don't do this as much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/poverty-linked-to-brain-structure-in-children-new-research-shows/2015/03/31/25fe6f10-d7df-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

Also, children from more educated families will be corrected in a much better way when they misbehave (which leads most of these children to learn how they should behave), then children from less educated families. This is why you have severe problems with behavior at a number of Title I schools in DC.