Anonymous
06/13/2025 21:50
Subject: Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes
the magnets don't improve educational outcomes? why have them, then? is that the reason they are reportedly getting phased out?
I'm mainly referring to non-application choice programs that allow families to enter a lottery for spots at schools from outside of their boundaries.
Well then resolve the DCC. I’m sure everyone will love that.
Like the DCPS choice program, the DCC choice program is popular but also exacerbates inequities. In both cases they are just carrots to entice people not to leave the area. However it does not help, and probably hurts the schools themselves.
I disagree about exacerbating inequities but am willing to see data if you’ve got any.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 21:40
Subject: Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes
the magnets don't improve educational outcomes? why have them, then? is that the reason they are reportedly getting phased out?
I'm mainly referring to non-application choice programs that allow families to enter a lottery for spots at schools from outside of their boundaries.
Well then resolve the DCC. I’m sure everyone will love that.
Like the DCPS choice program, the DCC choice program is popular but also exacerbates inequities. In both cases they are just carrots to entice people not to leave the area. However it does not help, and probably hurts the schools themselves.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 21:34
Subject: Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
*desolve not resolve
Anonymous
06/13/2025 21:33
Subject: Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes
the magnets don't improve educational outcomes? why have them, then? is that the reason they are reportedly getting phased out?
I'm mainly referring to non-application choice programs that allow families to enter a lottery for spots at schools from outside of their boundaries.
Well then resolve the DCC. I’m sure everyone will love that.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 19:56
Subject: Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes
the magnets don't improve educational outcomes? why have them, then? is that the reason they are reportedly getting phased out?
I'm mainly referring to non-application choice programs that allow families to enter a lottery for spots at schools from outside of their boundaries.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 19:52
Subject: Re:Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.
Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.
That will be an awesome option for some families.
That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities
but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.
Basically you are creating a worse environment for the kids left behind. Either because they are not motivated or they can't make it work with work and/or sibling care commitments. It's really not a solution and one of the reasons why dcps is such a sh&t show
Anonymous
06/13/2025 18:56
Subject: Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
I’m personally not interested in spending time refining option 3, which is the farthest from good/acceptable for most families. I think option 2 is the best one to try to refine.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 18:48
Subject: Re:Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.
Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.
That will be an awesome option for some families.
That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities
Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.
Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.
the magnets are lotteries...
you make no sense.
The high school magnets are not lotteries.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 17:23
Subject: Re:Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.
Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.
That will be an awesome option for some families.
That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities
but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 17:19
Subject: Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes
the magnets don't improve educational outcomes? why have them, then? is that the reason they are reportedly getting phased out?
Anonymous
06/13/2025 17:18
Subject: Re:Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.
Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.
That will be an awesome option for some families.
That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities
Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.
Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.
the magnets are lotteries...
you make no sense.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 17:17
Subject: Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes
Anonymous
06/13/2025 17:14
Subject: Re:Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.
Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.
That will be an awesome option for some families.
That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities
I'm fine with that.
Well then that settles it
Anonymous
06/13/2025 17:12
Subject: Re:Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.
Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.
That will be an awesome option for some families.
That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities
I'm fine with that.
Anonymous
06/13/2025 16:31
Subject: Re:Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.
Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.
That will be an awesome option for some families.
That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities
Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.
Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.