Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.
Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.
No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.
With the St. Ann's school becoming vacant next door, maybe DCPS could rent it so that Janney could create a "school within a school" annex for the at-risk kids. That way, they could get special attention and services in a safe environment and under Janney supervision but not hold the other kids back if they are not functioning at grade level.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.
Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.
No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.
With the St. Ann's school becoming vacant next door, maybe DCPS could rent it so that Janney could create a "school within a school" annex for the at-risk kids. That way, they could get special attention and services in a safe environment and under Janney supervision but not hold the other kids back if they are not functioning at grade level.
Anyone else concerned this raises image of 'separate but equal' all over again ????
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.
Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.
No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.
With the St. Ann's school becoming vacant next door, maybe DCPS could rent it so that Janney could create a "school within a school" annex for the at-risk kids. That way, they could get special attention and services in a safe environment and under Janney supervision but not hold the other kids back if they are not functioning at grade level.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.
Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.
No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.
Anonymous wrote:^^thanks PP for that explanation. Does anyone know what priority preference will be? For example, will OOB with sibling still get preference over the at-risk preference?
Anonymous wrote:While I certainly appreciate and agree with the sentiment that proximity should be a highly prioritized factor in school boundaries, the reality of the current situation in upper northwest is we have 3 public elementary schools which are very, very close to each other. We already have a situation where some families live closer to one school but are zoned for another but the difference in distances we're talking about for a number of homes (not all certainly) are really quite marginal.
But back to the issue of 3 very closely positioned schools - Two of those schools - Janney, Murch - have geographically large boundaries and a high participation rate by neighborhood students. One - Hearst - has a relatively very small geographic boundary and low participation rate by neighborhood students. It simply seems illogical to me NOT to adjust the boundaries to more evenly distribute neighborhood kids among the 3 schools in the neighborhood. I truly don't understand how anyone can provide a rational argument not to support greater neighborhood participation at Hearst when you consider the neighborhood/system as a whole and not just on a school by school basis.
I could NEVER support a proposal for DCPS to spend another cent on a new school building in upper NW DC until all existing schools in upper NW DC including Hearst see equivalent neighborhood participation.
As a note in response to the PP comment about 'how at-risk kids will get to WOTP schools', I'd offer in general "where there's a will there's a way', and more specifically that Janney in particular is about 100 yards from a public bus stop and perhaps more relevantly the metro. Of all Ward 3 schools it is arguably the best logistically suited for OOB at risk students to get to given WMATA's provision for kids to ride free to school.
Anonymous wrote:Janney is a lot more like Montgomery County schools than other city schools -- full of strivers -- but with a pitiful level of diversity. I think that's the hardest thing to take about Janney and why I sent my children to private even though I was IB there. The school is HUGE by DC standards and the vast majority of the kids are white.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.
Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.