Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always wondered why they just don't fill every class room in the city. Would a "failing" school become higher performing if each class had 8-10 students? Would parents be more eager to invest in a school locally if it had small class sizes instead of shipping their kid across the city to the already crowded school.

I’d be happy for my tax dollars to support that!

It isn't really economically viable at scale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

At a HRCS, in order to get to 10% at risk, you would have to fill the entire pk3 and pk4 with at risk students.

I doubt they would expect 10% the first year, and schools are not starting from 0%. But if that did happen it is fine with me. HRCS need to pull their weight. I am so sick of ther shirking. Oh, not part of our model. Oh, can't meet their needs, too bad so sad. Oh, they just don't apply-- well if that's true, then an at-risk should be no problem to agree to, right?

Or... we could just stick with the model where everyone has an equal shot at getting into these schools.

At-risk preference compensates for their aversion to recruiting, their unwelcoming attitude, and their tendency to push families out without a formal expulsion.

See 14:20; only 6 charter schools have less than 10% at-risk students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

At a HRCS, in order to get to 10% at risk, you would have to fill the entire pk3 and pk4 with at risk students.

I doubt they would expect 10% the first year, and schools are not starting from 0%. But if that did happen it is fine with me. HRCS need to pull their weight. I am so sick of ther shirking. Oh, not part of our model. Oh, can't meet their needs, too bad so sad. Oh, they just don't apply-- well if that's true, then an at-risk should be no problem to agree to, right?

Or... we could just stick with the model where everyone has an equal shot at getting into these schools.

At-risk preference compensates for their aversion to recruiting, their unwelcoming attitude, and their tendency to push families out without a formal expulsion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

At a HRCS, in order to get to 10% at risk, you would have to fill the entire pk3 and pk4 with at risk students.

I doubt they would expect 10% the first year, and schools are not starting from 0%. But if that did happen it is fine with me. HRCS need to pull their weight. I am so sick of ther shirking. Oh, not part of our model. Oh, can't meet their needs, too bad so sad. Oh, they just don't apply-- well if that's true, then an at-risk should be no problem to agree to, right?

Or... we could just stick with the model where everyone has an equal shot at getting into these schools.

And eliminate sibling and staff preferences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

At a HRCS, in order to get to 10% at risk, you would have to fill the entire pk3 and pk4 with at risk students.

I doubt they would expect 10% the first year, and schools are not starting from 0%. But if that did happen it is fine with me. HRCS need to pull their weight. I am so sick of ther shirking. Oh, not part of our model. Oh, can't meet their needs, too bad so sad. Oh, they just don't apply-- well if that's true, then an at-risk should be no problem to agree to, right?

Or... we could just stick with the model where everyone has an equal shot at getting into these schools.

There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always wondered why they just don't fill every class room in the city. Would a "failing" school become higher performing if each class had 8-10 students? Would parents be more eager to invest in a school locally if it had small class sizes instead of shipping their kid across the city to the already crowded school.

I’d be happy for my tax dollars to support that!

I doubt it. There are lots of underperforming, underenrolled schools now. If they were going to have the same number of kids with twice as many teachers, or a teacher and a reading specialist or something, that could work. But would cost a lot.

I attended a small rural school with class sizes like that and we were all sick of each other. Sometimes a classroom functions better socially with more kids, and it is easier to make groups for various subjects. A room of 20 might have two or three advanced readers, but in a room of 8 you get one lonely kid.

Anonymous wrote:I've always wondered why they just don't fill every class room in the city. Would a "failing" school become higher performing if each class had 8-10 students? Would parents be more eager to invest in a school locally if it had small class sizes instead of shipping their kid across the city to the already crowded school.

I’d be happy for my tax dollars to support that!

I've always wondered why they just don't fill every class room in the city. Would a "failing" school become higher performing if each class had 8-10 students? Would parents be more eager to invest in a school locally if it had small class sizes instead of shipping their kid across the city to the already crowded school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

Actually, one person was arguing that all PK programs at the 'good' school should first be filled with at risk kids (an obviously doomed notion given crowding and how enrollment actually works).

As for the at risk set aside, very few schools -- maybe 3 or 4 - are below the proposed limit as it is.

Correct and for the few that aren't they are almost entirely inbound or sibling preference aka there are no spots

And again if you are really passionate about equality or equity feel free to move to ward 8

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

Actually, one person was arguing that all PK programs at the 'good' school should first be filled with at risk kids (an obviously doomed notion given crowding and how enrollment actually works).

As for the at risk set aside, very few schools -- maybe 3 or 4 - are below the proposed limit as it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

At a HRCS, in order to get to 10% at risk, you would have to fill the entire pk3 and pk4 with at risk students.

I doubt they would expect 10% the first year, and schools are not starting from 0%. But if that did happen it is fine with me. HRCS need to pull their weight. I am so sick of ther shirking. Oh, not part of our model. Oh, can't meet their needs, too bad so sad. Oh, they just don't apply-- well if that's true, then an at-risk should be no problem to agree to, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

And for the last time are you going to tell someone that plopped $1 million plus on their house that they can't attend their neighborhood school

All the best schools are completely filled with inbound

Bunch of liberals with no critical thinking skills on here

There is no DCPS school that is completely filled with IB students. None. No IB families will be shut out for a compulsory grade.

Deal - 70% IB
Lafayette - 88% IB
Brent - 65% IB

All we are talking about is trying to ensure that 10% of total students in the school are at risk.

The folks who would be affected by this are the OOB students from higher SES families who lottery to secure a seat in a desirable school.

The Deal number is misleading because virtually all OOB kids get in through feeder rights. For practical purposes Deal takes no kids in the lottery.

A lot of this data is old, which goes to a problem. How can you try to solve this problem when the data you are using is years old? Not sure why it is hard to be up to date (or at least provide last year's data).

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

At a HRCS, in order to get to 10% at risk, you would have to fill the entire pk3 and pk4 with at risk students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

And for the last time are you going to tell someone that plopped $1 million plus on their house that they can't attend their neighborhood school

All the best schools are completely filled with inbound

Bunch of liberals with no critical thinking skills on here

There is no DCPS school that is completely filled with IB students. None. No IB families will be shut out for a compulsory grade.

Deal - 70% IB
Lafayette - 88% IB
Brent - 65% IB

All we are talking about is trying to ensure that 10% of total students in the school are at risk.

The folks who would be affected by this are the OOB students from higher SES families who lottery to secure a seat in a desirable school.

The Deal number is misleading because virtually all OOB kids get in through feeder rights. For practical purposes Deal takes no kids in the lottery.