Anonymous wrote:Posted this on the wrong thread - regarding charter vs DCPS facility conditions

From 2-13 of the executive summary

Of all the District-owned facilities (DCPS, public charter schools, and co-located schools), 85% (55 of 65) received a Good or Fair FCI score. Of the public charter schools in non-District-owned facilities, 71% received a Good or Fair FCI score.

For public charter schools in non-District-owned facilities, 29% received a Poor FCI score, while 12% of public charter schools in District-owned facilities scored Poor (see Appendix A.4 and Appendix A.5 for details on facility FCI scores).

Overall, the results of the SY2017-18 FCAs demonstrate that the District’s school facilities are in good to fair condition. Facility condition is clearly worse in non District-owned facilities than in District-owned facilities. One factor contributing to this finding is the significant level of investment that the District has made since 2008 in its owned and maintained school facilities. Another possible factor is that the funding distributed to public charter schools for facilities (facilities allotment) has been insufficient to maintain charter school facilities to the same standard that DGS maintains the District-owned school buildings.

Many public charter school representatives expressed this sentiment during the MFP study. Furthermore, many public charter schools lease their school facilities and do not have control over maintenance or investments. Section 4 recommends undertaking a facility cost study as a first step in considering how to promote equitable facility conditions across sectors. Section 4 also recommends more data transparency.

But guess what? Charters have no duty topiblicly account for what they do with the ~$3500/student they receive for facilities. And they are fighting any attempt to make the info accessible through FOIA.

You can’t beg for new facilities or upgrades until you acccount for how you spend what you already receive

Anonymous wrote:man, they will have to do something with Powell before 10 years from now. It was renovated in stages and completed just a year or so ago, with capacity at around 500. They're going to have to actually make choices that keep it from getting to 700 students as that is more than the building can stand, and there are numerous schools nearby, including Dorothy Height, West, Raymond, MacFarland and others.

Powell is only 50% in boundary - why have it over capacity with so many out of boundary kids?

Anonymous wrote:man, they will have to do something with Powell before 10 years from now. It was renovated in stages and completed just a year or so ago, with capacity at around 500. They're going to have to actually make choices that keep it from getting to 700 students as that is more than the building can stand, and there are numerous schools nearby, including Dorothy Height, West, Raymond, MacFarland and others.

But everyone wants immersion!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone notice the part about re-boundarying earlier than planned?

I thought it was scheduled for 2020 but this report says 2022-23?

No, it was scheduled for 2022-23.

Can't happen soon enough IMO but will be satisfied if it really starts in 2022.

Janney and Deal boundaries are already in play.

man, they will have to do something with Powell before 10 years from now. It was renovated in stages and completed just a year or so ago, with capacity at around 500. They're going to have to actually make choices that keep it from getting to 700 students as that is more than the building can stand, and there are numerous schools nearby, including Dorothy Height, West, Raymond, MacFarland and others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the projected 2000 additional students in ward 3 by 2027 supposed to go to school? On the roofs of the facilities that are all already over utilized today according to this report? Capacity is just over 6,600, current enrollment is already over 6,900, projected enrollment of over 8,700 in 2027....

Presumably the 2022-23 boundary review would redraw lines and address that. A lot of people will be attending school east and south of where the current feeder patterns are drawn.

But how would they do that and maintain walkable elementary schools? You’d just be moving elementary school kids to other already over ultilized elementary schools. I mean, I live in Eaton’s boundary. The only nearby walkable school that isn’t currently over capacity is Hearst, but I suspect it will be in short order as well. Otherwise, we are sort of near Murch and Oyster, but not walkable with little kids 2x a day.

It won't necessarily have to be walkable.

They could be stricter about OOB kids, both through the lottery and when IB people move OOB.

They will probably also cut PK4 in some schools WoTP, or shrink the number of spots available to a single ECE inclusion class in each school.

I'd guess some of the WoTP self-contained special education classes will also move.

They could take Fillmore away and make each school do its own art classes, and either give it its own boundary as an elementary school, or make it a ECE campus with preference for schools that don't offer PK, or make it a citywide inclusion campus with no boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the projected 2000 additional students in ward 3 by 2027 supposed to go to school? On the roofs of the facilities that are all already over utilized today according to this report? Capacity is just over 6,600, current enrollment is already over 6,900, projected enrollment of over 8,700 in 2027....

Presumably the 2022-23 boundary review would redraw lines and address that. A lot of people will be attending school east and south of where the current feeder patterns are drawn.

But how would they do that and maintain walkable elementary schools? You’d just be moving elementary school kids to other already over ultilized elementary schools. I mean, I live in Eaton’s boundary. The only nearby walkable school that isn’t currently over capacity is Hearst, but I suspect it will be in short order as well. Otherwise, we are sort of near Murch and Oyster, but not walkable with little kids 2x a day.

I see a lot of mentions of how people are within X distance of a school OR public transit. I could be reading too much into it, but walkable schools for all may not be possible.

Anonymous wrote:Several goals:

Send Bancroft and Oyster to MacFarland and Roosevelt (probably moving Roosevelt STAY to a different location to free up space)
.
Make Adams additional bilingual elementary space.

End middle school at Francis-Stevens and send all kids who are zoned for there and Cardozo MS to Cardozo.

End middle school at CHML and if DCPS insists on having Montessori middle, put it at Brookland MS as a special wing with kids from CHML, Langdon, Langley, and Nalle having preference.

Shift parts of Maury's boundary to Miner and Payne; shift some of Brent to Tyler.

End the policy that if you get into a school OOB you can continue in the feeder pattern through 12th grade. You should be allowed to attend through the terminal grade of the school. Similarly, clarify the policies for people who move out of boundary to say if they move elsewhere in the District they can stay through the end of the school year, but after that they can only return if they get a seat through the lottery.

Less certain on this, but consider choice sets of bilingual and non-bilingual elementary schools where the boundary is combined and parents can express a preference. But you only get the destination middle and high school of the school you go to, so if you pick bilingual you get MacFarland and Roosevelt. I'd start with one of Hearst/Powell, Eaton/Bancroft, and Brent/Tyler.

Do this and you solve the whole problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the projected 2000 additional students in ward 3 by 2027 supposed to go to school? On the roofs of the facilities that are all already over utilized today according to this report? Capacity is just over 6,600, current enrollment is already over 6,900, projected enrollment of over 8,700 in 2027....

Presumably the 2022-23 boundary review would redraw lines and address that. A lot of people will be attending school east and south of where the current feeder patterns are drawn.

But how would they do that and maintain walkable elementary schools? You’d just be moving elementary school kids to other already over ultilized elementary schools. I mean, I live in Eaton’s boundary. The only nearby walkable school that isn’t currently over capacity is Hearst, but I suspect it will be in short order as well. Otherwise, we are sort of near Murch and Oyster, but not walkable with little kids 2x a day.

Several goals:

Send Bancroft and Oyster to MacFarland and Roosevelt (probably moving Roosevelt STAY to a different location to free up space)
.
Make Adams additional bilingual elementary space.

End middle school at Francis-Stevens and send all kids who are zoned for there and Cardozo MS to Cardozo.

End middle school at CHML and if DCPS insists on having Montessori middle, put it at Brookland MS as a special wing with kids from CHML, Langdon, Langley, and Nalle having preference.

Shift parts of Maury's boundary to Miner and Payne; shift some of Brent to Tyler.

End the policy that if you get into a school OOB you can continue in the feeder pattern through 12th grade. You should be allowed to attend through the terminal grade of the school. Similarly, clarify the policies for people who move out of boundary to say if they move elsewhere in the District they can stay through the end of the school year, but after that they can only return if they get a seat through the lottery.

Less certain on this, but consider choice sets of bilingual and non-bilingual elementary schools where the boundary is combined and parents can express a preference. But you only get the destination middle and high school of the school you go to, so if you pick bilingual you get MacFarland and Roosevelt. I'd start with one of Hearst/Powell, Eaton/Bancroft, and Brent/Tyler.

Posted this on the wrong thread - regarding charter vs DCPS facility conditions

From 2-13 of the executive summary

Of all the District-owned facilities (DCPS, public charter schools, and co-located schools), 85% (55 of 65) received a Good or Fair FCI score. Of the public charter schools in non-District-owned facilities, 71% received a Good or Fair FCI score.

For public charter schools in non-District-owned facilities, 29% received a Poor FCI score, while 12% of public charter schools in District-owned facilities scored Poor (see Appendix A.4 and Appendix A.5 for details on facility FCI scores).

Overall, the results of the SY2017-18 FCAs demonstrate that the District’s school facilities are in good to fair condition. Facility condition is clearly worse in non District-owned facilities than in District-owned facilities. One factor contributing to this finding is the significant level of investment that the District has made since 2008 in its owned and maintained school facilities. Another possible factor is that the funding distributed to public charter schools for facilities (facilities allotment) has been insufficient to maintain charter school facilities to the same standard that DGS maintains the District-owned school buildings.

Many public charter school representatives expressed this sentiment during the MFP study. Furthermore, many public charter schools lease their school facilities and do not have control over maintenance or investments. Section 4 recommends undertaking a facility cost study as a first step in considering how to promote equitable facility conditions across sectors. Section 4 also recommends more data transparency.

Anonymous wrote:Where are the projected 2000 additional students in ward 3 by 2027 supposed to go to school? On the roofs of the facilities that are all already over utilized today according to this report? Capacity is just over 6,600, current enrollment is already over 6,900, projected enrollment of over 8,700 in 2027....

Presumably the 2022-23 boundary review would redraw lines and address that. A lot of people will be attending school east and south of where the current feeder patterns are drawn.

Where are the projected 2000 additional students in ward 3 by 2027 supposed to go to school? On the roofs of the facilities that are all already over utilized today according to this report? Capacity is just over 6,600, current enrollment is already over 6,900, projected enrollment of over 8,700 in 2027....

Anonymous wrote:So according to the utilization grid, the only DC or charter schools at more than 110% capacity for SY 2017-18 were:

110%+ -- Powell, Roosevelt and SWW

95-110% -- Wilson, Janney, Lafayette, Maury, Ross, Eaton, Brent, Oyster-Adams (Adams) - 95-110%

80-95% -- Deal, Oyster-Adams (Oyster), Hearst, Hardy, Shepherd


I can't find Murch or Bancroft on the grid; either because I missed them or perhaps because they were in swing space during 17-18?

Page A-16 https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC%20Public%20Education%20Master%20Facilities%20Plan%202018.pdf

The report uses "programmatic capacity." During the Wilson Feeder Working Group process programmatic capacity was pretty well discredited as meaningless, it's just however many kids DCPS wants to put into the building.

Looks like the lobbyists were successful in keeping the Old Hardy school out of the report.