Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Update:

######


The International Baccalaureate Program @Roosevelt: A magnet school

The provides a world-class educational experience aligned with the frameworks and standards of the International Baccalaureate Program. We expect all students who successfully complete our course of study to be prepared for the International Baccalaureate diploma.

The International Baccalaureate Program is a rigorous college preparatory course of study that meets the needs of highly motivated secondary school students. The IB diploma allows graduates to fulfill requirements of national education systems worldwide, incorporating the best elements of each.


######

DCPS has IBM at elliot thine Jefferson and Banneker but it has not attracted high SES families. What would be different in this scenario?

Anonymous wrote:Update:

######


The International Baccalaureate Program @Roosevelt: A magnet school

The provides a world-class educational experience aligned with the frameworks and standards of the International Baccalaureate Program. We expect all students who successfully complete our course of study to be prepared for the International Baccalaureate diploma.

The International Baccalaureate Program is a rigorous college preparatory course of study that meets the needs of highly motivated secondary school students. The IB diploma allows graduates to fulfill requirements of national education systems worldwide, incorporating the best elements of each.


######

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Banneker was originally proposed for Capitol Hill, on the Blue/Orange metro line at the now-abandoned Hine Junior High space with excellent access to all of the city. It was located instead, as a conscious choice, in a location that was not anywhere near accessible to the enclaves of white families. The concern was that if it was easy to get to it would "flip" and become a white, academic HS.

You are really backwards on this.

White students who could get into a magnet school had privates open to them - and privates were more affordable. High achieving black students who didn't have the funds and couldn't get tuition assistance for privates had nothing but DCPS. The proximity to Howard University - a visible incentive to get to the next step - is the reason for Banneker's location.

The high-performing black kids absolutely needed access to an academic HS. But the single DCPS academic HS was purposely placed in a location that had very poor across-town transportation in 1980. And "across from Howard U" was not the same neighborhood then, and the major improvements in the neighborhood come only after the Green Line opened. While the private schools were less expensive in the 1980s, there were still plenty of kids from families that made the move to the suburbs because private schools were not affordable and the magnet school would have required bus travel and transfers in the ghetto.

A magnet school that was accessible via Metro would have attracted these students, as SWW did. There were plenty of white families who "couldn't get tuition assistance for privates" who left town because DCPS's academically rigorous HS was "closed" to them because transportation was a nightmare, with time and safety being two major concerns.

Location and transportation options factor in parental decisions of where to send one's kids. But so do school demographics, and few white families are willing to have their kid be "an only", which is why Banneker, even years after the Green Line opened has had very, very few white students.

It is really hard to attract white students to high schools that do not already have white students in their population. This is and will be a problem for any EoTP high school. Washington Latin did it by initially opening the middle school in a difficult to get to location two blocks west of the Washington National Cathedral (WoTP). They have moved EoTP since but they had seeded their diverse population early with their first class.

Anonymous wrote:
The goal is to have an "anchor" of proficient students that will make Roosevelt of higher academic quality than is currently available to most of the city. And, now that I'm thinking about it, that "anchor" of Ward 3 families is probably not enough to make it successful. Either the affected Ward 3 families will kill the policy politically, or they will choose to leave the city. So, how about some additional incentive, and a more solid "anchor" of proficient students to feed into Roosevelt: create a new, application-only middle school somewhere in the middle of the city, that would feed into Roosevelt. This new middle school could draw proficient students from throughout the city. It would automatically be a great school. And, those students, graduating from the new middle, would have a meaningful choice: go to Roosevelt, a charter, or apply to Banneker and Walls. I think this would strengthen the quality of Roosevelt, and its desirability, pretty quickly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think implementation is the main In order to keep that tap of students flowing, you need to create incentives for Ward 3 families to choose to send their kids there; for the most part, that means duplicating the entirety of Wilson's environment. Th the programs at the school.

This sounds clearly incorrect. If the parents are actively choosing, then by definition there must be meaningful differences.

I think you are correct that the "choice" would be difficult, because the result is really a forced choice for those Ward 3 families affected by the new boundaries: you're forced to go to Roosevelt, or you can choose to try for a charter, or you can choose to move out of town. That does kind of suck for them. But, going with the flow of the question: if the goal of the policy is to create a new Wilson in the middle of the city, then you've got to capture proficient students in some manner, and to do that you have to force some of them to be directed to the new school that you want to create.

The goal is to have an "anchor" of proficient students that will make Roosevelt of higher academic quality than is currently available to most of the city. And, now that I'm thinking about it, that "anchor" of Ward 3 families is probably not enough to make it successful. Either the affected Ward 3 families will kill the policy politically, or they will choose to leave the city. So, how about some additional incentive, and a more solid "anchor" of proficient students to feed into Roosevelt: create a new, application-only middle school somewhere in the middle of the city, that would feed into Roosevelt. This new middle school could draw proficient students from throughout the city. It would automatically be a great school. And, those students, graduating from the new middle, would have a meaningful choice: go to Roosevelt, a charter, or apply to Banneker and Walls. I think this would strengthen the quality of Roosevelt, and its desirability, pretty quickly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think implementation is the main In order to keep that tap of students flowing, you need to create incentives for Ward 3 families to choose to send their kids there; for the most part, that means duplicating the entirety of Wilson's environment. Th the programs at the school.

This sounds clearly incorrect. If the parents are actively choosing, then by definition there must be meaningful differences.

I think you are correct that the "choice" would be difficult, because the result is really a forced choice for those Ward 3 families affected by the new boundaries: you're forced to go to Roosevelt, or you can choose to try for a charter, or you can choose to move out of town. That does kind of suck for them. But, going with the flow of the question: if the goal of the policy is to create a new Wilson in the middle of the city, then you've got to capture proficient students in some manner, and to do that you have to force some of them to be directed to the new school that you want to create.

The goal is to have an "anchor" of proficient students that will make Roosevelt of higher academic quality than is currently available to most of the city. And, now that I'm thinking about it, that "anchor" of Ward 3 families is probably not enough to make it successful. Either the affected Ward 3 families will kill the policy politically, or they will choose to leave the city. So, how about some additional incentive, and a more solid "anchor" of proficient students to feed into Roosevelt: create a new, application-only middle school somewhere in the middle of the city, that would feed into Roosevelt. This new middle school could draw proficient students from throughout the city. It would automatically be a great school. And, those students, graduating from the new middle, would have a meaningful choice: go to Roosevelt, a charter, or apply to Banneker and Walls. I think this would strengthen the quality of Roosevelt, and its desirability, pretty quickly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think implementation is the main In order to keep that tap of students flowing, you need to create incentives for Ward 3 families to choose to send their kids there; for the most part, that means duplicating the entirety of Wilson's environment. Th the programs at the school.

This sounds clearly incorrect. If the parents are actively choosing, then by definition there must be meaningful differences.

Anonymous wrote:

I think implementation is the main In order to keep that tap of students flowing, you need to create incentives for Ward 3 families to choose to send their kids there; for the most part, that means duplicating the entirety of Wilson's environment. Th the programs at the school.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You know what, I appreciate your candor, as you're acknowledging (I think) that proficiency rates at Wilson would go down in lottery system. Except that the rates at Wilson are already at only 60%. Given that figure, I believe your prediction of proficiency is far too optimistic. If it came to pass, there would be no real benefit for a Ward 3 family to try the lottery to Wilson, as the possibility of losing the lottery would be too horrible to contemplate. More realistically, if the system went lottery, the scores at Wilson would become similar to the other non-application high schools in the District: at around 30% proficiency or less.

I believe most of us realize this. Even so, I don't believe it is enough to undermine support for lotteries among a large segment of the public. The alternative to lotteries cannot be leaving everyone outside Ward 3 with no viable high school option. I started this thread to discuss one way to create a viable option. So, let's please get back to the topic of what it would take to make Roosevelt an acceptable option for many who would otherwise contribute to Wilson's overcrowding problem.

Anonymous wrote:
You know what, I appreciate your candor, as you're acknowledging (I think) that proficiency rates at Wilson would go down in lottery system. Except that the rates at Wilson are already at only 60%. Given that figure, I believe your prediction of proficiency is far too optimistic. If it came to pass, there would be no real benefit for a Ward 3 family to try the lottery to Wilson, as the possibility of losing the lottery would be too horrible to contemplate. More realistically, if the system went lottery, the scores at Wilson would become similar to the other non-application high schools in the District: at around 30% proficiency or less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're dodging the question: really, what's the purpose of the lottery proposal other than to threaten Wilson families? I don't get it.

Families that can't get into Wilson think it's unfair that they can't get into Wilson. Unless you live in-bounds for Wilson, or attended an elementary school that feeds a middle school that feeds Wilson, you currently have zero percent chance of being admitted. With a lottery that chance moves from zero to non-zero for those families.

The problem the task force has been stumped by is that when you have a limited number of seats at a desirable school there really isn't any defensible way of deciding who gets them and who doesn't. By "defensible" I mean a system where the outcome is accepted by people other than the winners.

What the lottery has going for it is that the current system doesn't work all that well for very many people. Roughly 75% of the seats in public education right now are assigned by lottery. If you're in that group it's simple math that going to 100% improves your chances of getting a quality seat. The current boundary system just doesn't have a large constituency.

Interesting. Then a number of stakeholders believe that going to a lottery system would leave the quality of the educational experience at Wilson unchanged. It wouldn't. Without Ward 3 families feeding directly into Wilson, the academics at Wilson would go into the dumpster pretty quick. This equation should be obvious, but obviously, it is not. I must admit I'm perplexed why people don't, or can't, see this reality.

Half a loaf is better than none.

Which is better: a zero percent chance of getting into a school with proficiency scores in the 80's, or a non-zero chance of getting into a school with proficiency scores in the 60's? Some people would take the second, particularly those who currently have the zero chance.

(I hate using proficiency scores as a measure of anything but it's a handy shorthand).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're dodging the question: really, what's the purpose of the lottery proposal other than to threaten Wilson families? I don't get it.

Families that can't get into Wilson think it's unfair that they can't get into Wilson. Unless you live in-bounds for Wilson, or attended an elementary school that feeds a middle school that feeds Wilson, you currently have zero percent chance of being admitted. With a lottery that chance moves from zero to non-zero for those families.

The problem the task force has been stumped by is that when you have a limited number of seats at a desirable school there really isn't any defensible way of deciding who gets them and who doesn't. By "defensible" I mean a system where the outcome is accepted by people other than the winners.

What the lottery has going for it is that the current system doesn't work all that well for very many people. Roughly 75% of the seats in public education right now are assigned by lottery. If you're in that group it's simple math that going to 100% improves your chances of getting a quality seat. The current boundary system just doesn't have a large constituency.

Interesting. Then a number of stakeholders believe that going to a lottery system would leave the quality of the educational experience at Wilson unchanged. It wouldn't. Without Ward 3 families feeding directly into Wilson, the academics at Wilson would go into the dumpster pretty quick. This equation should be obvious, but obviously, it is not. I must admit I'm perplexed why people don't, or can't, see this reality.