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]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 [b]no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to[/b]. 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.

[b]The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB [/b]school just like most school districts in the country. 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]

Your post is self-contradictory. You claim that no one will choose to travel for certain schools, yet you want "redraw boundaries," which would force people to travel to these schools (i.e., their new "IB" schools). Do you really think that people with options in Ward 3 will abide by your forced plan -- rather than simply moving or going private?

[/quote]

The redrawn boundaries and limits on OOB attendance at other schools (thanks to the PP for clarifying that OOB students are only required if there are available seats at the OB school) would not require anyone to travel further than their IB school.  It would reduce student travel and fill seats at under-enrolled schools that need the per pupil funding to be able to offer greater course selection and more ECs. If redrawing the boundaries results in people in W3 being IB for different schools, then yes, they would have to decide to go to that new IB, go private or move.  Just like other people in the city and most people in the country do all the time.  Why should they be different?[/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