Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The programmatic capacity includes the trailers, i think.

No way the trailers hold 88 kids. Also, before the trailers were installed the capacity was listed as 287.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make more schools throughout the city better, safer, more attractive, and diverse and out of boundary students may choose other schools to attend instead of Ward 3 schools. Throw in good public transportation, too. Maybe when the Southwest Wharf is built, developers and business men will toss money to nearby schools and make those schools the coveted ones.

Also, the District is getting so expensive to live in that young people with families might move to the suburbs.

Im an EOTP parent of preschooler so no real dog in your fight but you are almost on to something. If they want more parents around the city to choose their IB then they have to bring back tracking, gifted classes or at a minimum pull the kids who are struggling out of grade level classes by 2nd grade. We are in our IB for preschool and our kid is actually having a great year but like every other high income family in her class we are playing lottery because we see whats on the horizon. Hello we see it NOW in some ways. when the principal admits there are kids in 3rd grade who still struggle with the basics, like letters and number, no way I am wasting my kids time in that class. So we play lottery or move WoTP and further crowd your schools. Honestly, tracking, test in etc would solve about 75% of DCPS problems. But it will never happen politically so Ward3 has kids in packed schools, other EoTP parents with kids in Preschools but desperate to lottery elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:55. Thanks PP for the explanation. With that in hand, I'm going to sort through the data we have to see if things make sense. Just as a test, I'll focus on Key Elementary, because it's entirely within Ward 3, so that will keep things cleaner.

1. According to your data from Cheh, Key ES is 93% Ward 3 students.
2. Key's 2016-17 enrollment is 386. http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/272_ES_16-17.pdf
3. Key's enrollment in 2015-16 was also 386. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
4. Key has 359 students living in Ward 3, and 27 not living in Ward 3. (93% of 386 = 359)
5. The 27 not living in Ward 3 are OOB students.
6. In theory, some of the 358 Ward 3 students might also be OOB for Key, even if they're living in Ward 3.
7. Key's IB enrollment is 83%. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
8. 320 of Key's students live IB for Key. (83% of 386 = 320)
9. 66 of Key's students are OOB. (386-320=66)
10. 39 Key students live in Ward 3, but are OOB for Key. (66-27=39)
11. Key's IB participation rate is 91%. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
12. There are 352 public school students living IB for Key. (91% of 352 = 320)
13. In 2014-15, when the school boundaries were being revised, DCPS predicted that the new Key boundary would have 310 IB public school students. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
14. In 2014-15, DCPS predicted some small growth, which likely accounts for the increase from 310 to 320 IB public school students.
15. Key's building capacity is 320 students. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
16. Key is even more overcapacity now than it was before the boundaries shrank. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
17. Without the OOB students (whether Ward 3 or not), Key would be right at building capacity. (Items 8 & 15)

I'm guessing a lot of the 39 students who are in Ward 3 but OOB for Key are ones who were previously within Key's boundary, but we pushed to OOB status when the boundaries changed. I'm not sure what to make of the 27 non-Ward 3 OOB students.

It would be interesting to do this same exercise with each of the schools, to see whether the boundary changes had the expected impact or made any improvements.

Key's boundaries didn't move in the last revision, they haven't moved in over 40 years. There are parts of the Mann territory that are closer to Key, and vice versa. If you look at the map by cluster that was posted above, very few kids attend Key from outside the cluster. Mann is in the same cluster. So I would surmise that many of the OOB kids live nearby but not in-boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key's boundaries didn't move in the last revision, they haven't moved in over 40 years. There are parts of the Mann territory that are closer to Key, and vice versa. If you look at the map by cluster that was posted above, very few kids attend Key from outside the cluster. Mann is in the same cluster. So I would surmise that many of the OOB kids live nearby but not in-boundary.

Really? Did this change not happen?: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Key%20ES.pdf

PP again. It appears you're right they did not change this time: "Key's attendance zone will not change. It was determined that due to demountables there are no immediate capacity pressures at Key that need to be relieved." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/dc-school-zones/

WTF is a "demountable"? Is it a trailer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key's boundaries didn't move in the last revision, they haven't moved in over 40 years. There are parts of the Mann territory that are closer to Key, and vice versa. If you look at the map by cluster that was posted above, very few kids attend Key from outside the cluster. Mann is in the same cluster. So I would surmise that many of the OOB kids live nearby but not in-boundary.

Really? Did this change not happen?: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Key%20ES.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Key's boundaries didn't move in the last revision, they haven't moved in over 40 years. There are parts of the Mann territory that are closer to Key, and vice versa. If you look at the map by cluster that was posted above, very few kids attend Key from outside the cluster. Mann is in the same cluster. So I would surmise that many of the OOB kids live nearby but not in-boundary.

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:55. Thanks PP for the explanation. With that in hand, I'm going to sort through the data we have to see if things make sense. Just as a test, I'll focus on Key Elementary, because it's entirely within Ward 3, so that will keep things cleaner.

1. According to your data from Cheh, Key ES is 93% Ward 3 students.
2. Key's 2016-17 enrollment is 386. http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/272_ES_16-17.pdf
3. Key's enrollment in 2015-16 was also 386. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
4. Key has 359 students living in Ward 3, and 27 not living in Ward 3. (93% of 386 = 359)
5. The 27 not living in Ward 3 are OOB students.
6. In theory, some of the 358 Ward 3 students might also be OOB for Key, even if they're living in Ward 3.
7. Key's IB enrollment is 83%. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
8. 320 of Key's students live IB for Key. (83% of 386 = 320)
9. 66 of Key's students are OOB. (386-320=66)
10. 39 Key students live in Ward 3, but are OOB for Key. (66-27=39)
11. Key's IB participation rate is 91%. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
12. There are 352 public school students living IB for Key. (91% of 352 = 320)
13. In 2014-15, when the school boundaries were being revised, DCPS predicted that the new Key boundary would have 310 IB public school students. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
14. In 2014-15, DCPS predicted some small growth, which likely accounts for the increase from 310 to 320 IB public school students.
15. Key's building capacity is 320 students. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
16. Key is even more overcapacity now than it was before the boundaries shrank. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
17. Without the OOB students (whether Ward 3 or not), Key would be right at building capacity. (Items 8 & 15)

I'm guessing a lot of the 39 students who are in Ward 3 but OOB for Key are ones who were previously within Key's boundary, but we pushed to OOB status when the boundaries changed. I'm not sure what to make of the 27 non-Ward 3 OOB students.

It would be interesting to do this same exercise with each of the schools, to see whether the boundary changes had the expected impact or made any improvements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:55. Thanks PP for the explanation. With that in hand, I'm going to sort through the data we have to see if things make sense. Just as a test, I'll focus on Key Elementary, because it's entirely within Ward 3, so that will keep things cleaner.

1. According to your data from Cheh, Key ES is 93% Ward 3 students.
2. Key's 2016-17 enrollment is 386. http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/272_ES_16-17.pdf
3. Key's enrollment in 2015-16 was also 386. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
4. Key has 359 students living in Ward 3, and 27 not living in Ward 3. (93% of 386 = 359)
5. The 27 not living in Ward 3 are OOB students.
6. In theory, some of the 358 Ward 3 students might also be OOB for Key, even if they're living in Ward 3.
7. Key's IB enrollment is 83%. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
8. 320 of Key's students live IB for Key. (83% of 386 = 320)
9. 66 of Key's students are OOB. (386-320=66)
10. 39 Key students live in Ward 3, but are OOB for Key. (66-27=39)
11. Key's IB participation rate is 91%. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
12. There are 352 public school students living IB for Key. (91% of 352 = 320)
13. In 2014-15, when the school boundaries were being revised, DCPS predicted that the new Key boundary would have 310 IB public school students. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
14. In 2014-15, DCPS predicted some small growth, which likely accounts for the increase from 310 to 320 IB public school students.
15. Key's building capacity is 320 students. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
16. Key is even more overcapacity now than it was before the boundaries shrank. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
17. Without the OOB students (whether Ward 3 or not), Key would be right at building capacity. (Items 8 & 15)

I'm guessing a lot of the 39 students who are in Ward 3 but OOB for Key are ones who were previously within Key's boundary, but we pushed to OOB status when the boundaries changed. I'm not sure what to make of the 27 non-Ward 3 OOB students.

It would be interesting to do this same exercise with each of the schools, to see whether the boundary changes had the expected impact or made any improvements.

And the DME's website lists the "programmatic capacity" of Key as 408 even though the "building capacity" is 320. Which is why this year's enrollment is closer to 415 (profiles haven't been updated yet.)

And that is how DCPS keeps messing up.

Anonymous wrote:The programmatic capacity includes the trailers, i think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:55. Thanks PP for the explanation. With that in hand, I'm going to sort through the data we have to see if things make sense. Just as a test, I'll focus on Key Elementary, because it's entirely within Ward 3, so that will keep things cleaner.

1. According to your data from Cheh, Key ES is 93% Ward 3 students.
2. Key's 2016-17 enrollment is 386. http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/272_ES_16-17.pdf
3. Key's enrollment in 2015-16 was also 386. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
4. Key has 359 students living in Ward 3, and 27 not living in Ward 3. (93% of 386 = 359)
5. The 27 not living in Ward 3 are OOB students.
6. In theory, some of the 358 Ward 3 students might also be OOB for Key, even if they're living in Ward 3.
7. Key's IB enrollment is 83%. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
8. 320 of Key's students live IB for Key. (83% of 386 = 320)
9. 66 of Key's students are OOB. (386-320=66)
10. 39 Key students live in Ward 3, but are OOB for Key. (66-27=39)
11. Key's IB participation rate is 91%. https://goo.gl/Un9DF7
12. There are 352 public school students living IB for Key. (91% of 352 = 320)
13. In 2014-15, when the school boundaries were being revised, DCPS predicted that the new Key boundary would have 310 IB public school students. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
14. In 2014-15, DCPS predicted some small growth, which likely accounts for the increase from 310 to 320 IB public school students.
15. Key's building capacity is 320 students. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
16. Key is even more overcapacity now than it was before the boundaries shrank. https://goo.gl/e5UDbd
17. Without the OOB students (whether Ward 3 or not), Key would be right at building capacity. (Items 8 & 15)

I'm guessing a lot of the 39 students who are in Ward 3 but OOB for Key are ones who were previously within Key's boundary, but we pushed to OOB status when the boundaries changed. I'm not sure what to make of the 27 non-Ward 3 OOB students.

It would be interesting to do this same exercise with each of the schools, to see whether the boundary changes had the expected impact or made any improvements.

And the DME's website lists the "programmatic capacity" of Key as 408 even though the "building capacity" is 320. Which is why this year's enrollment is closer to 415 (profiles haven't been updated yet.)