What are the odds OOB feeder rights will end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

Look, Ward 3 parents are willing to pay more than their fair share of taxes knowing they will see little in return in terms of services. They are even willing to contribute to their PTA to make up the delta in terms of per pupil funding. But they are not willing to send their kids to over crowded schools or schools outside their neighborhoods. There are limits to what government can do here. And we are rapidly approaching those limits.

[Anonymous]

It's a fairly safe assumption that at-risk kids are going to behind the children of professionals academically by the upper grades, at least in this particular city, no matter how bright they may be, absent GT programming and other supports from a young age. Wish things were different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

That would get some of the Seaton folks out of Cardozo (though not sure Dunbar is much more appealing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

That would get some of the Seaton folks out of Cardozo (though not sure Dunbar is much more appealing).

PP again--also, what makes B'dale so great is how neighborhoody it is, but this would split bloomingdale, so I don't love the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

That would get some of the Seaton folks out of Cardozo (though not sure Dunbar is much more appealing).

It's not appealing. But it does get them McKinley Middle, which right now I would choose over the current Cardozo Middle. Basically Langley's giant building and the Emery building are going to need to absorb as much of the baby boom as they possibly can. It does not solve the Ward 3 problem but it's something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

That would get some of the Seaton folks out of Cardozo (though not sure Dunbar is much more appealing).

PP again--also, what makes B'dale so great is how neighborhoody it is, but this would split bloomingdale, so I don't love the plan.

I know, I love it too. My kid is starting pk3 at a nearby HRCS and I am totally feeling the Langley FOMO. And I would hate to split Langley just when it's picking up speed.

Emery would need a big renovation, so this is more of a 10-year plan. Maybe renovate Emery empty, swing Langley to Emery to renovate Langley, and then split. The two schools are so close together, a Peabody/Watkins approach could also work. You could, for example, offer K-2nd at Emery and 1st-5th at Langley, intentionally providing 1st and 2nd at each location to allow for siblings to have a single dropoff. The more I think about that idea the more I like it!

[Anonymous]

Looking more at the MFP.... the city owns a lot at 1325 S St NW. It is just around the corner from Garrison. Put up a building there for preschool-1st and Garrison could expand significantly. Or it could be used for Ross if people are willing to walk a few blocks.

A freestanding preschool would be delightful at the Hill East development and could relieve Tyler and Payne.

The city could also buy a building from a closed charter if it is privately owned. Not sure what building owners would be willing to sell, but that could mean some space opens up in the immediate EOTP area, which is starting to crowd up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:eyond that point, if I understand the research right, outcomes for low SES kids suffer, although outcomes for high SES kids don't suffer as one might expect, likely due to parents supplementing outside of the classroom.

I think you missed that it was a tipping point in outcomes for low socioeconomic status WHITE kids. Thing is, DC has essentially none.

No, this is flatly wrong. In fact, much of the research that I've seen on this is related to desegregation, so it's explicitly low income minority kids. Where did you get the idea that it was talking about low SES white kids? Given what I've read of this literature, that seems like kind of an outlandish idea , and I'm wondering where you got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

You don't have children, do you?

I do put "others at the center of my life." They're my children, and I make no apologies about ranking their well being higher than that of children I've never met. That's not amoral; in a zero-sum construct, which some of these situations are, a ranking is inevitable and there is no utopian "win-win" for my children relative to a stranger's child.

Sorry if that sounds harsh when distilled down to the basics. I'd wager 99.9998% of parents would choose the fate of their child over the fate of an unknown child when forced to in a head-to-head circumstance (i.e., a burning building). DCPS school assignment isn't such a stark scenario, but there are relative winners and losers and I'm not going to selflessly shunt my kid to the losing group so that a child I've never met can take her place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:eyond that point, if I understand the research right, outcomes for low SES kids suffer, although outcomes for high SES kids don't suffer as one might expect, likely due to parents supplementing outside of the classroom.

I think you missed that it was a tipping point in outcomes for low socioeconomic status WHITE kids. Thing is, DC has essentially none.

No, this is flatly wrong. In fact, much of the research that I've seen on this is related to desegregation, so it's explicitly low income minority kids. Where did you get the idea that it was talking about low SES white kids? Given what I've read of this literature, that seems like kind of an outlandish idea , and I'm wondering where you got it.

Also, how does the PP suppose the results would differ for low SES white vs. low SES black kids? Are they suggesting that the same % of low SES black kids in a class would be associated with different or worse results for everyone?

[Anonymous]

The results aren’t even that much better in the majority of the studies and the controls never touch on these points;

-the type of kids whose parents get them into these programs tend to be the more proactive type. I suspect their kids would do better in a vacuum

-it never really shows the impact to the wealthy kids. They don’t do a base line so it is hard to extrapolate. It should be noted the opposite of the pervious point that those kids will be the higher SES families with the least options so as a whole they might trend lower anyway

-comparison to simply putting similar additional resources to the poorer schools and targeting those kid locally

-detailed break out on the economic scope of their natural segregation. Did they come from a poor school from a poor county and go to a rich school or rich system? I suspect you would find that Same system buses would have much lower results. DC schools are mostly funded equally, they might not get the same bounce just from being close to white kids without the resource bump too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The results aren’t even that much better in the majority of the studies and the controls never touch on these points;

-the type of kids whose parents get them into these programs tend to be the more proactive type. I suspect their kids would do better in a vacuum

-it never really shows the impact to the wealthy kids. They don’t do a base line so it is hard to extrapolate. It should be noted the opposite of the pervious point that those kids will be the higher SES families with the least options so as a whole they might trend lower anyway

-comparison to simply putting similar additional resources to the poorer schools and targeting those kid locally

-detailed break out on the economic scope of their natural segregation. Did they come from a poor school from a poor county and go to a rich school or rich system? I suspect you would find that Same system buses would have much lower results. DC schools are mostly funded equally, they might not get the same bounce just from being close to white kids without the resource bump too.

This I am convinced that the studies with the greatest gains stem from kids going from schools with the greatest disparity in resources. Then people use that to justify mixing and matching comparable schools in the same district thinking that poor kids will succeed by absorbing something from middle class kids for their own social desires. What they really do is come off as just trying to punish people who they are jealous of. Taking a bunch of kids from public housing and sending them to school with middle class kids just hides their mediocrity by slipping it in to the stronger metrics all while exposing those families to that brand of obscenity that they worked so hard to avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The results aren’t even that much better in the majority of the studies and the controls never touch on these points;

-the type of kids whose parents get them into these programs tend to be the more proactive type. I suspect their kids would do better in a vacuum

-it never really shows the impact to the wealthy kids. They don’t do a base line so it is hard to extrapolate. It should be noted the opposite of the pervious point that those kids will be the higher SES families with the least options so as a whole they might trend lower anyway

-comparison to simply putting similar additional resources to the poorer schools and targeting those kid locally

-detailed break out on the economic scope of their natural segregation. Did they come from a poor school from a poor county and go to a rich school or rich system? I suspect you would find that Same system buses would have much lower results. DC schools are mostly funded equally, they might not get the same bounce just from being close to white kids without the resource bump too.

>the type of kids whose parents get them into these programs
Much of this research has to with mandated desegregation that parents have no say whatsoever in, so the "type of parents" has nothing to do with this research. This is different than charter schools.

>it never really shows the impact to the wealthy kids.
Yeah, several studies explicitly addresses this. What they've found is that outcomes for high SES kids aren't impacted long term. Outcomes for high income kids of educated parents are good regardless of many other factors.

>comparison to simply putting similar additional resources to the poorer schools and targeting those kid locally
The WaPo story on de-segregation above cited several studies that referred to de-segregation as far and away the most effective measure of everything that they studied, but funding matters too. Most of what I've seen on this suggests that eliminating unequal funding raises poor kids' achievement. I don't know how applicable that is in DC where funding is pretty equal.

>detailed break out on the economic scope of their natural segregation. Did they come
>from a poor school from a poor county and go to a rich school or rich system?
Yes, this has been explicitly addressed. For example, see this paper. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49c5/7316101297fa7ff76d955285817cf8f61af8.pdf