Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless I'm mistaken by my cursory first review, I see the demise of almost all the PS-8 Education Campuses, which I think is a good thing.

Why is that a good thing? I'm not being sarcastic, I really would like to know what I'm missing. Oyster-Adams is still a Pk-8th EC and it seems to get better every year.

Anonymous wrote:I thought Janney was overcapacity the day it opened after renovation?

Anonymous wrote:I think the Ward 3 and other popular schools are going to have to get rid of PK or severely limit it in order to make room for the OOB set-aside.

Anonymous wrote:Bowser will endorse this and win the election. There's not much for Catania to punch at in the latest DME report. Congratulations, public servants.

Anonymous wrote:"Do they have no ability to go OOB anymore because all the OOB spots at many schools will be filled from the separate "at risk" pool? Do you win if you are rich (and live IB for a great school) or poor enough to qualify as at risk, but they didn't think about people in the middle?"
This.. YES. for NEW OOB starting Fall 2015 as I read it.

Can someone clarify the proposal for phasing Feeder Changes for current OOB students?
My understanding is that OOB students do NOT have the right to feed into the next level school and are treated as NEW students, UNLESS they are attending the feeder school for the first time (e.g., at the entry grade) by the Fall of 2015. After that, they are cut off from the old OOB feeder pattern, correct? We are talking about current K-4 elem OOB students, they lose right to feed into OOB Middle School? again not talking about at risk.


THIS IS WRONG! the following states that OOB has the right to attend the feeder at the next level...

DCPS elementary students shall have access by right to the middle school designated as a next-level
school in the geographic feeder pattern for the elementary school they complete, regardless of whether
the students live in the attendance zone of the designated middle school.
6. DCPS middle-grade students shall have access by right to the high school designated as a next-level
school in the geographic feeder pattern for the middle school they complete, regardless of whether the
students live in the attendance zone of the designated high school.
7. DCPS students shall have access by right to the designated next level school in the programmatic feeder
pattern for the specialized program/school they complete. See the Proposed Programmatic Feeder
Pathways at the end of this document.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah, I'm blaming our ANC, who has spoken to me three times. All three times, she told me, unprompted and a propos of nothing, that Crestwood is safe in the Deal/Wilson boundaries.

Crestwood will stay inbounds for Deal/Wilson until MacFarland is reopened. So, if that worries you, start working now to get a historical designation placed on MacFarland, identify any environmental issues that will require years of study, and perhaps locate a endangered species on the grounds.

Better yet, I smell a lawsuit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless I'm mistaken by my cursory first review, I see the demise of almost all the PS-8 Education Campuses, which I think is a good thing.

Why is that a good thing? I'm not being sarcastic, I really would like to know what I'm missing. Oyster-Adams is still a Pk-8th EC and it seems to get better every year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

Deal's always had Mt. Pleasant. Why would that be odd ball?

Odd by it's shape on the map.

That's Crestwood that was neatly cut out of Deal and Wilson boundaries. Biggest loser under this proposal (w/ 16th St H).

Well we knew this was going to be proposed eventually, but the promise of a new MacFarland is not comforting without some additional commitment from DCPS. I think there are enough parents to make it work, but we need a lot from DCPS too.
Jeff, did that list of ideas for how to make MacFarland and Jefferson ever go anywhere?

Yeah, I'm blaming our ANC, who has spoken to me three times. All three times, she told me, unprompted and a propos of nothing, that Crestwood is safe in the Deal/Wilson boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:Unless I'm mistaken by my cursory first review, I see the demise of almost all the PS-8 Education Campuses, which I think is a good thing.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah, I'm blaming our ANC, who has spoken to me three times. All three times, she told me, unprompted and a propos of nothing, that Crestwood is safe in the Deal/Wilson boundaries.

Crestwood will stay inbounds for Deal/Wilson until MacFarland is reopened. So, if that worries you, start working now to get a historical designation placed on MacFarland, identify any environmental issues that will require years of study, and perhaps locate a endangered species on the grounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"25.
A student whose place of residence within the District of Columbia changes from one attendance zone
to a different attendance zone shall be permitted to stay in his or her current school until the end of the
school year, and students who are defined as
at-risk under the UPSFF
shall be permitted to attend the
school until the final grade level"

I found the definition - how does this overlap with FARM?

"Q:
What is the definition of “at risk”?
A:
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. The at
-
risk weight is cumulative to all other weights, with the exception of the
adult and alternat
ive weights. At
-
risk dollars are unrestricted in their use.
This definition is consistent with the “Fair Student Funding and School
-
Based Budgeting
Amendment Act of 2013”. The definition of at
-
risk weight in the proposed FY15 Budget
Support Act is broader
than what was recommended in the Adequacy Study. For more
information on how the at
-
risk weight will be implemented, see below."

What does that mean? One "at risk" factor (such as SNAP) outweighs ALL other factors? Such as IB for PK or OOB with sibling? If the child is on TANF and wants in to Murch, then a child who is IB for Hearst but has proximity to Murch gets bumped? Or a family at Janney with 2 children enrolled and another little one IB for PK, that child gets bumped for the homeless child at a shelter somewhere in Petworth? (Not judging, just looking for clarification because these statements are not as explanatory as they should be.

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah, I'm blaming our ANC, who has spoken to me three times. All three times, she told me, unprompted and a propos of nothing, that Crestwood is safe in the Deal/Wilson boundaries.