Anonymous wrote:Re-route Shepherd, Bancroft, and Oyster. Problem solved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
1. Reduce OOB access for overcrowded schools. This includes not only new OOB students, but also the feeder rights of enrolled OOB students.
2. Shrink boundaries around overcrowded schools.
Neither step alone will completely solve the overcrowding problem, but I am quite confident that if used in combination, these two steps will solve the overcrowding problem at any school.
The problem with Janney, Key, Stoddert and Mann is:
* They're all overcrowded
* None have a significant number of OOB
* They border each other.
So the formula of adjusting boundaries and limiting OOB isn't going to fix it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.
This. At the rate things are going, Janney will have 1500 kids and Deal will have Janney as its sole feeder schoolClearly the city needs to respond and build schools where the school-aged population is growing. This is assuming that the growth is projected to continue. If this is a temporary demographic bulge (there is evidence of this for Lafeyette), then the best solutiom is probably to ride it out and shrink OOB by attrition which is already happening. We will also see the impacts of the 2014 boundary shrinking that occurred for both Deal and Wilson. Don't forget both Cleveland Park and Woodley Park were removed from Deal and numerous neighborhoods were removed from Wilson. It was a big reduction for both, Wilson especially, and it takes a few years for the students from those neighborhoods to graduate. They will not be replaced, now that the boundaries have shrunk.
Agree with all of this. Seems that kicking out EOTP feeders would at best be kicking the can down the road for a few more years, and at worse may have a negligible effect on reducing overcrowding. Parents in overcrowded, majority IB schools like Janney may need to get their heads around revisiting current boundaries. Similarly, OOB rights to Deal/Wilson may need to be reconsidered.
Um, no. Moving the EOTP feeders and ending OOB feeders would literally solve Deal and Wilson overcrowding overnight.
Anonymous wrote:
1. Reduce OOB access for overcrowded schools. This includes not only new OOB students, but also the feeder rights of enrolled OOB students.
2. Shrink boundaries around overcrowded schools.
Neither step alone will completely solve the overcrowding problem, but I am quite confident that if used in combination, these two steps will solve the overcrowding problem at any school.
Anonymous wrote:Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.
This. At the rate things are going, Janney will have 1500 kids and Deal will have Janney as its sole feeder schoolClearly the city needs to respond and build schools where the school-aged population is growing. This is assuming that the growth is projected to continue. If this is a temporary demographic bulge (there is evidence of this for Lafeyette), then the best solutiom is probably to ride it out and shrink OOB by attrition which is already happening. We will also see the impacts of the 2014 boundary shrinking that occurred for both Deal and Wilson. Don't forget both Cleveland Park and Woodley Park were removed from Deal and numerous neighborhoods were removed from Wilson. It was a big reduction for both, Wilson especially, and it takes a few years for the students from those neighborhoods to graduate. They will not be replaced, now that the boundaries have shrunk.
Agree with all of this. Seems that kicking out EOTP feeders would at best be kicking the can down the road for a few more years, and at worse may have a negligible effect on reducing overcrowding. Parents in overcrowded, majority IB schools like Janney may need to get their heads around revisiting current boundaries. Similarly, OOB rights to Deal/Wilson may need to be reconsidered.
Anonymous wrote:Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.
This. At the rate things are going, Janney will have 1500 kids and Deal will have Janney as its sole feeder schoolClearly the city needs to respond and build schools where the school-aged population is growing. This is assuming that the growth is projected to continue. If this is a temporary demographic bulge (there is evidence of this for Lafeyette), then the best solutiom is probably to ride it out and shrink OOB by attrition which is already happening. We will also see the impacts of the 2014 boundary shrinking that occurred for both Deal and Wilson. Don't forget both Cleveland Park and Woodley Park were removed from Deal and numerous neighborhoods were removed from Wilson. It was a big reduction for both, Wilson especially, and it takes a few years for the students from those neighborhoods to graduate. They will not be replaced, now that the boundaries have shrunk.
Agree with all of this. Seems that kicking out EOTP feeders would at best be kicking the can down the road for a few more years, and at worse may have a negligible effect on reducing overcrowding. Parents in overcrowded, majority IB schools like Janney may need to get their heads around revisiting current boundaries. Similarly, OOB rights to Deal/Wilson may need to be reconsidered.
Anonymous wrote:Newbie questions. Is there an FAQ or short summary of facts?
For example
How is overcrowding determined, is there a set formula?
Have schools been ranked in terms of capacity? Which are closest to dangerous levels?
Are administrators and teachers trained in best practices for space utilization, organization, and scheduling? More classrooms don't necessarily mean better instruction. I've seen some pretty significant wastes of space and time.
Do trailers impact performance negatively? Can trailers be part of longer-term flexibility in instruction? Many of the high-performing schools in DC and the area have used trailers for years. Friends' kids at Murch told me they preferred the trailer to the creepy old building. Mann didn't seem to suffer academically during trailer park era, but that was because of teachers and leadership.
Are there other cities, maybe in other countries, that efficiently manage learning environments in limited spaces?
Could neighborhood preference for charters help?
I have no solutions, but it's hard to ask questions in person when folks get really worked up.
TIA
Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.
This. At the rate things are going, Janney will have 1500 kids and Deal will have Janney as its sole feeder schoolClearly the city needs to respond and build schools where the school-aged population is growing. This is assuming that the growth is projected to continue. If this is a temporary demographic bulge (there is evidence of this for Lafeyette), then the best solutiom is probably to ride it out and shrink OOB by attrition which is already happening. We will also see the impacts of the 2014 boundary shrinking that occurred for both Deal and Wilson. Don't forget both Cleveland Park and Woodley Park were removed from Deal and numerous neighborhoods were removed from Wilson. It was a big reduction for both, Wilson especially, and it takes a few years for the students from those neighborhoods to graduate. They will not be replaced, now that the boundaries have shrunk.
Anonymous wrote:Thanks Brian
I will come to the meeting, but will not offer or propose solutions. I am not an educator or school system expert and I do not plan to be. ...
It's not my job to find a solution, rather the job of those who are paid to do that and supposedly have the skills to do that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. I think the answer is obvious for those schools that are overcrowded: there needs to be some combination of boundary shrinking and/or OOB reduction.
That's hard medicine because it will piss off people who want access to the Ward 3 schools but won't get it. You certainly should lessen the pain by grandfathering in those students already at the school. But there will inevitably be neighborhoods that lose access, even if they don't have school-age kids yet, which will be pissed off. Also, many of the boundary-edge neighborhoods that are likely to get squeezed out by shrinking boundaries have significant AA populations, which makes it really easy to level an accusation of racism against those who might propose shrinking boundaries.
The other option is cutting OOB students. But cutting lots of OOB students leads to the other problem, which is that people will see the Ward 3 schools "getting whiter." That's an inevitable result of reducing OOB spots, because the OOB community is less-white than Ward 3 residents. So it leads to people complaining that reducing OOB spots is essentially racism. I think that's an unfair and inaccurate accusation, but it's a damning one that is hard for anyone advocating for fewer OOB students (and certainly any DC politician) to refute.
I personally think though that shrinking boundaries and cutting OOB students are the only two viable approaches to lessening overcrowding. The key is that politicians and community members need to be willing to impose the short-term pain, and accept the potential voter backlash. But long-term, that's the only solution. Continuing to let more students into the overcrowded schools doesn't solve any problems; it just kicks the can down the road. Pushing the excess students out will be painful, but it will strengthen other schools that those families return to, which is a good thing for DC long-term. DC should pair the boundary/OOB reduction with a plan for increased resources to the schools where those removed students will be attending instead of the overcrowded Ward 3 schools. In other words, give people a good alternative. Also, the strong network of charters in place in DC will help lessen the pain for families because they'll have lots of other options to replace the Ward 3 schools they're losing access to.
The only other options I can see are (1) something radical like shifting to a citywide lottery, or (2) building even more school capacity in Ward 3. The citywide lottery is just dumb IMHO. It makes everyone feel less resentful because it "shares the pain," but it's terribly inefficient. Building more schools (or expanding the existing schools) in Ward 3 is the coward's solution IMHO because it's just wasting money so people can stuff even more children into the desirable Ward 3 schools, and continuing to allow all the other schools outside Ward 3 to sink deeper into trouble. It might make some people feel good because they can say things like "Alice Deal for everyone!," but it doesn't improve schools in the long run, and it just means we are transporting more kids to Ward 3 to make ourselves feel better without effecting real improvement.
Personally, I also think the current situation creates its own set of racially complex arrangements. I suspect the current complex lottery system favors high-SES (ie, white) families, because they're the ones with extra time, resources, and know-how to sort out how they can game the system to get their OOB children into Ward 3 feeders. Also, the refusal of DCPS to shrink the borders around overcrowded schools likely leads to lots of additional gentrification from high-SES and white families into those border communities. So although the obvious solution of shrinking boundaries and reducing OOB students has some elements that undeniably will adversely impact lower-SES and AA families, the current overcrowded situation has similar racial problems just presented differently.
Shrinking boundaries (i.e., cutting out the 50 kids a year at bancroft and shepherd that attend Deal) is not enough. It will not address over crowding at Eaton, Janney, Mann, Lafayette, and now Hearst. It will barely throw a stitch at Deal and Wilson. There obviously needs to be a new elementary, new middle and new high school WOTP at the very least. New elementary should primarily pull from Janney and Lafayette.
Clearly the city needs to respond and build schools where the school-aged population is growing. This is assuming that the growth is projected to continue. If this is a temporary demographic bulge (there is evidence of this for Lafeyette), then the best solutiom is probably to ride it out and shrink OOB by attrition which is already happening. We will also see the impacts of the 2014 boundary shrinking that occurred for both Deal and Wilson. Don't forget both Cleveland Park and Woodley Park were removed from Deal and numerous neighborhoods were removed from Wilson. It was a big reduction for both, Wilson especially, and it takes a few years for the students from those neighborhoods to graduate. They will not be replaced, now that the boundaries have shrunk.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You may think your name is clear but in this forum everyone is looking for a cohort to kick out bc 'crowding.' That's why the defensiveness on this from Bancroft, Shepherd, Lafayette and Ouster-Adams.
But you already knew that.
Why is crowding in quotes? Do you have alternative facts?
Class sizes below hte high school level are below 25 in every school. Many early grades with multiple teachers. Compare to Arlington or Montgomery where class sizes approach 30 in K or 1st, with 1 teacher.
Class size isn't the only metric of crowding. Adding more classrooms doesn't make the library bigger, or the gymnasium, or the lunchroom, or the playground. Crowding erodes the quality of every aspect of school life. It's cold comfort that there's only 25 kids in the class when you have to eat lunch in 10-minute shifts.
And kids all over the city don't have gyms or libraries or playgrounds. Fix that first.