Does anyone know what the demographics of Van Ness Elementary School is like this school year?

[Anonymous]

I think the guarantee is akin to a marketing gimmick. VN had to fill seats with OOB kids this year and there doesn't seem to be any reason to expect a different circumstance next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way... word on the street is that Van Ness Elementary will have guaranteed PS3 & PK4 for in-bound students for the 2016-2017 school year as well.

If that's true, it probably means it's a Title I school. The DME's plans are to ultimately provide guaranteed PK for people IB for all DCPS Title I elementary schools and the other schools that offered it last year were all Title I.

I think Van Ness will be an exception. It's clearly not a Title I school this year, and they will continue to offer guaranteed PS3 & PK4 because they know the building could actually accommodate more students then they planned for (the building won't be at capacity until 5 years from now). So they are making it guaranteed for PS3 & PK4 not because it's a Title I school, but because they have the room for it, and also it gives an incentive for in-bound residents to go and ultimately stick to their local school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way... word on the street is that Van Ness Elementary will have guaranteed PS3 & PK4 for in-bound students for the 2016-2017 school year as well.

If that's true, it probably means it's a Title I school. The DME's plans are to ultimately provide guaranteed PK for people IB for all DCPS Title I elementary schools and the other schools that offered it last year were all Title I.

I think Van Ness will be an exception. It's clearly not a Title I school this year, and they will continue to offer guaranteed PS3 & PK4 because they know the building could actually accommodate more students then they planned for (the building won't be at capacity until 5 years from now). So they are making it guaranteed for PS3 & PK4 not because it's a Title I school, but because they have the room for it, and also it gives an incentive for in-bound residents to go and ultimately stick to their local school.

If they have spare room, why would they bother making it a guarantee? There's already an in-boundary preference. All it does is guarantee that people put it at the bottom of their Round 1 lottery picks. If there weren't a guarantee, people might place it higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way... word on the street is that Van Ness Elementary will have guaranteed PS3 & PK4 for in-bound students for the 2016-2017 school year as well.

If that's true, it probably means it's a Title I school. The DME's plans are to ultimately provide guaranteed PK for people IB for all DCPS Title I elementary schools and the other schools that offered it last year were all Title I.

I think Van Ness will be an exception. It's clearly not a Title I school this year, and they will continue to offer guaranteed PS3 & PK4 because they know the building could actually accommodate more students then they planned for (the building won't be at capacity until 5 years from now). So they are making it guaranteed for PS3 & PK4 not because it's a Title I school, but because they have the room for it, and also it gives an incentive for in-bound residents to go and ultimately stick to their local school.

If they have spare room, why would they bother making it a guarantee? There's already an in-boundary preference. All it does is guarantee that people put it at the bottom of their Round 1 lottery picks. If there weren't a guarantee, people might place it higher.

This is incorrect. In order to take advantage of "guaranteed PS3 & PK4", you have to place it #1 on your list. For example, if you place it at the bottom of the list, and you get into any of the schools you place before it, you lose your "guaranteed" status, and you get placed on the waitlist for Van Ness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way... word on the street is that Van Ness Elementary will have guaranteed PS3 & PK4 for in-bound students for the 2016-2017 school year as well.

If that's true, it probably means it's a Title I school. The DME's plans are to ultimately provide guaranteed PK for people IB for all DCPS Title I elementary schools and the other schools that offered it last year were all Title I.

I think Van Ness will be an exception. It's clearly not a Title I school this year, and they will continue to offer guaranteed PS3 & PK4 because they know the building could actually accommodate more students then they planned for (the building won't be at capacity until 5 years from now). So they are making it guaranteed for PS3 & PK4 not because it's a Title I school, but because they have the room for it, and also it gives an incentive for in-bound residents to go and ultimately stick to their local school.

If they have spare room, why would they bother making it a guarantee? There's already an in-boundary preference. All it does is guarantee that people put it at the bottom of their Round 1 lottery picks. If there weren't a guarantee, people might place it higher.

This is incorrect. In order to take advantage of "guaranteed PS3 & PK4", you have to place it #1 on your list. For example, if you place it at the bottom of the list, and you get into any of the schools you place before it, you lose your "guaranteed" status, and you get placed on the waitlist for Van Ness.

This got addressed many times when people were applying for 2015-6 places. If you live IB and put VN #10 on your Round 1 list, you will either get it or a school you prefer. There is no way that you will get matched to your #11 or #12 school, and no way you will be on VN's waitlist. Obviously you shouldn't put it #10 if there are only 2 schools you prefer to it--in that case, you should put it #3. But you should not list it #1 if you'd rather go to another school.

Also, if what PPs are saying is true and there is excess capacity at VN, then it might even make sense for IB families who have 12 schools they prefer to VN to not list VN at all in Round 1. If they don't get matched anywhere, they'd get to be on 12 waitlists instead of 11 or fewer, and they could do Round 2 and get placed above any OOB kids from the Round 1 waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Your assertion that some closed minded people associate income with race confirms that you're hopelessly out of touch. Every discussion of Van Ness eventually devolves into the correlation between the two in DC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the large numbers of poor white families living in-bound for Van Ness. OP opened the door for the umpteenth time by inquiring about "demographics." It's tried and true dog whistle terminology. Again, if you're asking about demographics youbhave more than a passing familiarity with the economic disparities between families living east of S. Capitol (mostly white) and families living west of S. Capitol (mostly black). Spare us the piety.

You are missing my point (and that made by others). But that says a great deal about you, not us. We're not pious. We're honest. We care about racial makeup as we don't want to be an only one. I also care about SES diversity. And that doesn't necessarily track with race. The fact that YOU think it does says something about you, not me. I'm guessing your faux liberalism can't grasp that concept - that's ok, you're forgiven (THAT's piety my friend, ironic and sarcastic as it may be). And you actually don't know much about the area around Van Ness if you think the areas "East of S Cap" are predominantly black. There's almost no original housing stock there. Its all new townhouses and mixed use and condos. The townhouses sell for a million bucks on the open market, and some percentage were reserved for low income and can't be sold above some capped rate. But there's no original housing stock...unless someone is camping out in Nat's Park. And the sample size at Van Ness is too small to extrapolate broader stats from DC. If I used my HRCS as a model for the broader population then 25% of all black women would be corporate lawyers.

But let me be clear: My liberalism isn't faux, it's real, it's sincere and I don't apologize for it. I see color. I see SES. I see differences. To pretend like those things don't exist, or to conflate the concepts and pretend like you're just taking the position of bigots exposes you as a faux liberal.

Faux liberalism? Really? Why would anyone with a brain be a self-professed "liberal" in the first place? It's equivalent to announcing that you can't do math. Pretending to be a liberal is beyond stupid, unless it is some sort of deep cover.

[Anonymous]

Anne Coulter did this same ridiculous schtick a decade ago. It wasn't clever then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Your assertion that some closed minded people associate income with race confirms that you're hopelessly out of touch. Every discussion of Van Ness eventually devolves into the correlation between the two in DC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the large numbers of poor white families living in-bound for Van Ness. OP opened the door for the umpteenth time by inquiring about "demographics." It's tried and true dog whistle terminology. Again, if you're asking about demographics youbhave more than a passing familiarity with the economic disparities between families living east of S. Capitol (mostly white) and families living west of S. Capitol (mostly black). Spare us the piety.

You are missing my point (and that made by others). But that says a great deal about you, not us. We're not pious. We're honest. We care about racial makeup as we don't want to be an only one. I also care about SES diversity. And that doesn't necessarily track with race. The fact that YOU think it does says something about you, not me. I'm guessing your faux liberalism can't grasp that concept - that's ok, you're forgiven (THAT's piety my friend, ironic and sarcastic as it may be). And you actually don't know much about the area around Van Ness if you think the areas "East of S Cap" are predominantly black. There's almost no original housing stock there. Its all new townhouses and mixed use and condos. The townhouses sell for a million bucks on the open market, and some percentage were reserved for low income and can't be sold above some capped rate. But there's no original housing stock...unless someone is camping out in Nat's Park. And the sample size at Van Ness is too small to extrapolate broader stats from DC. If I used my HRCS as a model for the broader population then 25% of all black women would be corporate lawyers.

But let me be clear: My liberalism isn't faux, it's real, it's sincere and I don't apologize for it. I see color. I see SES. I see differences. To pretend like those things don't exist, or to conflate the concepts and pretend like you're just taking the position of bigots exposes you as a faux liberal.

This made me laugh. Who would fake liberalism? Why would anyone want to pretend to be someone who consistently denies logic?

[Anonymous]

I drove by the school the other day at lunch time and some kids were on the playground. The class seemed very diverse and all of the children looked happy playing together.

[Anonymous]

Is K majority AA or white? What about PreK3? Say what you will, but if all grades are majority white (if just by a slim margin), the school will catch on quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is K majority AA or white? What about PreK3? Say what you will, but if all grades are majority white (if just by a slim margin), the school will catch on quickly.

You're absolutely correct about that. If VN is majority white, it is a more desirable school. Of course, if it is majority AA, parents will be wary of the school because they don't want their snowflakes to be bullied by the AA students. A lot of white parents are fearful of AA, especially the white parents who moved to Washington DC from other parts of the country with limited diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is K majority AA or white? What about PreK3? Say what you will, but if all grades are majority white (if just by a slim margin), the school will catch on quickly.

PS3 and PK4 are both about 70% white. K is about 60% white.

[Anonymous]

White folks are afraid of AAs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is K majority AA or white? What about PreK3? Say what you will, but if all grades are majority white (if just by a slim margin), the school will catch on quickly.

You're absolutely correct about that. If VN is majority white, it is a more desirable school. Of course, if it is majority AA, parents will be wary of the school because they don't want their snowflakes to be bullied by the AA students. A lot of white parents are fearful of AA, especially the white parents who moved to Washington DC from other parts of the country with limited diversity.

wrong. If whites feared AA they wouldn't live in DC in the first place. The problem is that in DC is that almost all AA are also poor. Therefore the overwhelming majoirty of AA kids come from high poverty homes and all the associated problems that come with unstable, exposure to violence, lack of role models, hunger, illiterate caregivers etc. And that almost always translates into major behavioral issues in school. Thats what white people are avoiding. I am white and I wouldn't want my kid around a class of white rednecks in south (where I grew up) either. I want my kid to be primarily in a class of children who respect the teacher and come from families who prioritize learning. I worry about violence in schools directed at my kid as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is K majority AA or white? What about PreK3? Say what you will, but if all grades are majority white (if just by a slim margin), the school will catch on quickly.

You're absolutely correct about that. If VN is majority white, it is a more desirable school. Of course, if it is majority AA, parents will be wary of the school because they don't want their snowflakes to be bullied by the AA students. A lot of white parents are fearful of AA, especially the white parents who moved to Washington DC from other parts of the country with limited diversity.

wrong. If whites feared AA they wouldn't live in DC in the first place. The problem is that in DC is that almost all AA are also poor. Therefore the overwhelming majoirty of AA kids come from high poverty homes and all the associated problems that come with unstable, exposure to violence, lack of role models, hunger, illiterate caregivers etc. And that almost always translates into major behavioral issues in school. Thats what white people are avoiding. I am white and I wouldn't want my kid around a class of white rednecks in south (where I grew up) either. I want my kid to be primarily in a class of children who respect the teacher and come from families who prioritize learning. I worry about violence in schools directed at my kid as well.

Gentrifiers who complain the AA families don't welcome them with open arms - the post above is the prime example why!