Reply to Wilson is 50% over enrolled.

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Wilson is 50% over enrolled. "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson [/quote]

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson. [/quote]

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.[/quote]

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

[/quote]
Why do you bother? To be cute?  You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP.  These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely.  What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?[/quote]

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

[/quote]

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and [b]require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country[/b]. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white. [/quote]

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.[/quote]

Of course that is not what PP meant.  There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.[/quote]

Did you all know this before you moved to DC?  Or before you decided to procreate in DC?  OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search.  It will take time to undo, if necessary.[/quote]

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.[/quote]

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

[/quote]

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.[/quote]

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.     [/quote]

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made.  It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.[/quote]

As someone has just reminded you all, the enrollment patterns and lay of the land in 2008 was very different. You sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and pretend all this was foreseeable. There are so many SAHM/D or people with jobs that don't require making hard choices that sit here and play Monday morning quarterback. It is funny.[/quote]

LOL.  I get that couldn’t foresee everything.

But higher in the thread, a PP seems to claim that no one should dare suggest that policy be changed to end feeder rights (despite the fact that, as was pointed out, the policy was changed before.)

The PP ridiculously rants, “Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC?”
[/quote]

I am not the person who posted that line about "did you know this when you moved here" but let me try and explain what I think they meant. I don't think they meant to suggest that changes shouldn't be made and that voters shouldn't advocate for changes they feel would improve the educational outcomes. There are a lot of people on DCUM who like to suggest that all of this is easy and that somehow the current state of affairs was the result of some conspiracy against UMC W2/W3 families that began in 2008. I think the "did you know when you moved here/had babies here" is a reaction to people who both allege a conspiracy and act surprised that this is how things work in DC.

My major issue with how this narrative always seems to go is that a bunch of people who have never had jobs where they need to make large decisions with major consequences sit around and snipe at people who put it all out there and had leadership roles. It is fair to say you think the results were bad. Where I take issue is this idea that negative outcomes were clearly foreseeable, and as proof they offer up the current enrollment/population/overcrowding issues when the facts of DCPS enrollment/population/under enrollment at 14 years ago were dissimilar (and in many ways in opposition) to where we find ourselves today.   
 [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics