Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

I agree that the DME needs to clarify city-wide lottery component. What makes you think that the DME means that the at risk population will be limited to 10% at city-wide schools? The list of preference categories does not make it clear that the way the wait list will be generated is with only 10% of students at risk going to the top. This isn't clear for non-city-wide schools also. It reads to me like the boundary schools that qualify have to set aside 10% of seats and the preference order goes IB/sib, IB, OOB/sib, OOB/at risk, OOB/proximity, OOB. Therefore, this is the order that the spots are filled and the wait list is generated. So, they have to set aside AT LEAST 10% of seats for at risk, but they also have to fill the seats in the preference order. Therefore, all the at risk kids fill the seats first, even if there are more than 10% of seats available, and then everyone else gets in line in their lottery order. At a citywide school, there is no IB population, so the seats fill OOB/sib, OOB at risk, OOB proximity, OOB. There is no language that indicates that the OOB/at risk will be LIMITED to 10%. If there are enough students who fit that criteria in the city (and let's face it, there are), a school would have to fill all of its OOB seats with at risk kids first. There is unlikely to be any seats left at city-wide schools (or any other schools for that matter) for OOB/proximity, and OOB.

I am sort of surprised that this isn't of more concern to people in this thread since a lot of people bank on getting in somewhere either OOB or to a city-wide school, both of which are pretty much off the table unless you are OOB/at risk.

My read is the same as yours--my middle-class kid will have to get into a charter by luck or go to our IB failing school. Or we will have to move to a place we can afford that also has good schools.

Is this really so different than the current reality?

My impression is that all of the schools that would be affected by this proposal already have zero open spots.

I don't know how the 10% would work. Is it 10% per grade level? Overall? Will they have to add 10% to their student population?

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:I thought the at-risk priority only applied to schools that were under 30% at-risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

I agree that the DME needs to clarify city-wide lottery component. What makes you think that the DME means that the at risk population will be limited to 10% at city-wide schools? The list of preference categories does not make it clear that the way the wait list will be generated is with only 10% of students at risk going to the top. This isn't clear for non-city-wide schools also. It reads to me like the boundary schools that qualify have to set aside 10% of seats and the preference order goes IB/sib, IB, OOB/sib, OOB/at risk, OOB/proximity, OOB. Therefore, this is the order that the spots are filled and the wait list is generated. So, they have to set aside AT LEAST 10% of seats for at risk, but they also have to fill the seats in the preference order. Therefore, all the at risk kids fill the seats first, even if there are more than 10% of seats available, and then everyone else gets in line in their lottery order. At a citywide school, there is no IB population, so the seats fill OOB/sib, OOB at risk, OOB proximity, OOB. There is no language that indicates that the OOB/at risk will be LIMITED to 10%. If there are enough students who fit that criteria in the city (and let's face it, there are), a school would have to fill all of its OOB seats with at risk kids first. There is unlikely to be any seats left at city-wide schools (or any other schools for that matter) for OOB/proximity, and OOB.

I am sort of surprised that this isn't of more concern to people in this thread since a lot of people bank on getting in somewhere either OOB or to a city-wide school, both of which are pretty much off the table unless you are OOB/at risk.

My read is the same as yours--my middle-class kid will have to get into a charter by luck or go to our IB failing school. Or we will have to move to a place we can afford that also has good schools.

Is this really so different than the current reality?

My impression is that all of the schools that would be affected by this proposal already have zero open spots.

I don't know how the 10% would work. Is it 10% per grade level? Overall? Will they have to add 10% to their student population?

Yes.

dcmom wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

I agree that the DME needs to clarify city-wide lottery component. What makes you think that the DME means that the at risk population will be limited to 10% at city-wide schools? The list of preference categories does not make it clear that the way the wait list will be generated is with only 10% of students at risk going to the top. This isn't clear for non-city-wide schools also. It reads to me like the boundary schools that qualify have to set aside 10% of seats and the preference order goes IB/sib, IB, OOB/sib, OOB/at risk, OOB/proximity, OOB. Therefore, this is the order that the spots are filled and the wait list is generated. So, they have to set aside AT LEAST 10% of seats for at risk, but they also have to fill the seats in the preference order. Therefore, all the at risk kids fill the seats first, even if there are more than 10% of seats available, and then everyone else gets in line in their lottery order. At a citywide school, there is no IB population, so the seats fill OOB/sib, OOB at risk, OOB proximity, OOB. There is no language that indicates that the OOB/at risk will be LIMITED to 10%. If there are enough students who fit that criteria in the city (and let's face it, there are), a school would have to fill all of its OOB seats with at risk kids first. There is unlikely to be any seats left at city-wide schools (or any other schools for that matter) for OOB/proximity, and OOB.

I am sort of surprised that this isn't of more concern to people in this thread since a lot of people bank on getting in somewhere either OOB or to a city-wide school, both of which are pretty much off the table unless you are OOB/at risk.

My read is the same as yours--my middle-class kid will have to get into a charter by luck or go to our IB failing school. Or we will have to move to a place we can afford that also has good schools.

Is this really so different than the current reality?

My impression is that all of the schools that would be affected by this proposal already have zero open spots.

I don't know how the 10% would work. Is it 10% per grade level? Overall? Will they have to add 10% to their student population?

Yes.

I know middle income people in my neighborhood who attend Hearst and Eaton OOB. I won't have that option, even though the IB school I am sending my child to is one of the lowest-performing elementary schools in DC. So yes, it is different--at least I had a shot before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the at-risk priority only applied to schools that were under 30% at-risk.

My bad. I think you are right. But, I think my point is still valid. My IB school is far from stellar and not currently on the list, but isn't very far from being 70% non-at risk is you use the stated definition: "The at-risk weight applies to students who are homeless, in the District’s foster care system, qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or high school students that are one year older, or more, than the expected age for the grade in which the students are enrolled."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the at-risk priority only applied to schools that were under 30% at-risk.

My bad. I think you are right. But, I think my point is still valid. My IB school is far from stellar and not currently on the list, but isn't very far from being 70% non-at risk is you use the stated definition: "The at-risk weight applies to students who are homeless, in the District’s foster care system, qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or high school students that are one year older, or more, than the expected age for the grade in which the students are enrolled."

So, red-shirted boys at private schools now have at-risk priority to transfer OOB to Wilson? They better change that to 2 years.

Anonymous wrote:I'm still trying to make sense of a few pieces, but one question I have is about theses sections:

Starting in 2018-19 the proposed 10 percent out-of-boundary set asides for 6th graders in middle
schools shall be provided by DCPS and be available through the common lottery to rising 6th
graders not already in that middle school’s feeder pattern.


Starting in 2018-19 the proposed 10percent out-of-boundary set asides for 9th graders in high
schools shall be provided by DCPS and be available through the common lottery to rising 9th
graders not already in that high school’s feeder pattern.

So will the 10 percent set asides be able to go on to the feeder high school, or do they apply oob again for 9th grade?

Anonymous wrote:My IB schools will be MacFarland and Roosevelt...I could be crazy and could ultimately be worn down by the bueacracy, but I'm actually kind of excited at the prospect of those as new schools. I really, really, really hope that DCPS builds programs there that would attract the high-SES families who are moving into Petworth and 16 Street Heights. My kids are still young enough that MacFarland and Roosevelt could be renovated and reopened as attractive programs. Unfortunately, I'm not thrilled with the plan that Roosevelt will have a world language focus, since our IB elementary school doesn't offer much of anything beyond having a teaching assistant who is Spanish speaking and the limited "world language" requirement set in place by DCPS last year. Wish/hope there will be a shift to STEM or simply a strong commitment to creating lots of advanced classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My IB schools will be MacFarland and Roosevelt...I could be crazy and could ultimately be worn down by the bueacracy, but I'm actually kind of excited at the prospect of those as new schools. I really, really, really hope that DCPS builds programs there that would attract the high-SES families who are moving into Petworth and 16 Street Heights. My kids are still young enough that MacFarland and Roosevelt could be renovated and reopened as attractive programs. Unfortunately, I'm not thrilled with the plan that Roosevelt will have a world language focus, since our IB elementary school doesn't offer much of anything beyond having a teaching assistant who is Spanish speaking and the limited "world language" requirement set in place by DCPS last year. Wish/hope there will be a shift to STEM or simply a strong commitment to creating lots of advanced classes.

We're neighbors! Also, I think that new schools could be reopened as good options. The more I think about it, the more I believe that fighting to make my neighborhood schools better is part of the trade-off of wanting to stay in the city. I have the ability to help, and this will benefit kids who have parents who don't know/care/have the time to do this. I can't be the only one. My kid is small and won't jump into DCPS until next year for pre-k3, but I think this might be the solution for our family. We picked this neighborhood, and we can help make it nicer. But someone had better fix up the Colorado Laundry and make it a restaurant already - I'll worry about the schools, someone else bring me the retail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My IB schools will be MacFarland and Roosevelt...I could be crazy and could ultimately be worn down by the bueacracy, but I'm actually kind of excited at the prospect of those as new schools. I really, really, really hope that DCPS builds programs there that would attract the high-SES families who are moving into Petworth and 16 Street Heights. My kids are still young enough that MacFarland and Roosevelt could be renovated and reopened as attractive programs. Unfortunately, I'm not thrilled with the plan that Roosevelt will have a world language focus, since our IB elementary school doesn't offer much of anything beyond having a teaching assistant who is Spanish speaking and the limited "world language" requirement set in place by DCPS last year. Wish/hope there will be a shift to STEM or simply a strong commitment to creating lots of advanced classes.

We're neighbors! Also, I think that new schools could be reopened as good options. The more I think about it, the more I believe that fighting to make my neighborhood schools better is part of the trade-off of wanting to stay in the city. I have the ability to help, and this will benefit kids who have parents who don't know/care/have the time to do this. I can't be the only one. My kid is small and won't jump into DCPS until next year for pre-k3, but I think this might be the solution for our family. We picked this neighborhood, and we can help make it nicer. But someone had better fix up the Colorado Laundry and make it a restaurant already - I'll worry about the schools, someone else bring me the retail.

I hope there are more families like you in your neighborhood and I hope DCPS appreciates and nurtures your enthusiasm for improving your schools.

Anonymous wrote:Have they been dumbed down as a result?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still trying to make sense of a few pieces, but one question I have is about theses sections:

Starting in 2018-19 the proposed 10 percent out-of-boundary set asides for 6th graders in middle
schools shall be provided by DCPS and be available through the common lottery to rising 6th
graders not already in that middle school’s feeder pattern.


Starting in 2018-19 the proposed 10percent out-of-boundary set asides for 9th graders in high
schools shall be provided by DCPS and be available through the common lottery to rising 9th
graders not already in that high school’s feeder pattern.

So will the 10 percent set asides be able to go on to the feeder high school, or do they apply oob again for 9th grade?

The students that were accepted through the set aside in an elementary school are already in the feeder pattern for the middle school the elementary feeds. Same for feeding from middle to high school. This is an additional 10 percent at the entry year for middle and high school.