Anonymous wrote:

And efficiency is a good goal, but when you talk about spending public dollars disproportionately on the weatlhier/whiter kids in DCPS, you need to take a minute to think about optics even if you have no regard for equity.

I'm the one who proposed the cash payment idea.

First, I don't necessarily think most of the payments will go to wealthy white kids. Several people have already posted here that there's no way they'd move from Deal to MacFarland for even $10,000 per year. A wealthy family will be less motivated because the money is a smaller proportion of their income. I suspect the people most likely to change schools for a cash payment will be families who have only moderate income, so the money is more enticing. And to the extent white families are afraid of leaving Deal because of a fear of other neighborhoods and other races (as some have claimed here), I suspect that tilts the payments toward more non-white families that live outside of NWDC. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the family most likely to take this payment for a move to MacFarland is one that lived EOTP and not far from MacFarland, but which managed to get into the Deal feeder system via grandfathering or OOB or because they live someplace like Shepherd Park. THey're families who would love a functioning MS close to home, but who stick with Deal only because the local MS is not yet safe enough. The cash payment might be enough to push them over the edge. The payment program would be open to all eligible for Deal, so there's nothing that limits the payment to wealthy white students. Wealthy white families that are sick of Deal overcrowding might take it. But plenty of others will too.

Second, I think the cash payment is all about equity. It's giving equal opportunity to every family at Deal, regardless of income. It's aimed at boosting the cohort of students and benefits at an EOTP schools, at the expense of WOTP Deal. It's exactly the sort of thing DCPS has been doing by spending on programming at EOTP schools, but it's just trusting families to use the cash wisely themselves rather than paternalistically spending it for them on wasted school programs they don't really want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the pairing issue, one idea is to cluster schools, so in the example of Lafayette/Shepherd make one PK3-1 and the other grades 2-5 or something. Lafayette gets PK3. the main issue is transportation and managing the schedule when kids in the same family go to both schools. The capitol hill cluster has addressed these issues with some but not complete success.

I would also like to see pairings of DCPS WOTP schools and the EoTP bilingual schools. Some WoTP parents should be willing to send their kids to Marie Reed, Powell, etc. if there is a core of high-performing students. Peeling off Bancroft and Oyster and sending them along with other bilingual schools to MacFarland would be painful but the best thing for Deal and Wilson and MacFarland and Roosevelt. That would also enable Adams to be repurposed, potentially for more early childhood seats

The math doesn't work though. Right now at Lafayette alone, the PK-1st population is around 350, which already exceeds the number of kids at Shepherd currently. Even if you did PK3-K it would be tight. So then you're looking at expansion...

What if Shepherd became the ECE center and Lafayette K-5 -- That actually has tons of appeal in my mind (Lafayette mom here). It would also address what is sure to be overcrowding at Lafayette which will be at capacity next year (12 months after the building renovation...)

I love this. It will also bring some much needed diversity to both Lafayette and Shepherd. Shepherd is IB so either they'd need to drop it or Lafayette would have to adopt.

And since you'd be adding more PK3 spots, you neither school would lose much funding, but the overall student matriculation would drop.

You could do this with Hearst and either Murch or Janney as well.

And efficiency is a good goal, but when you talk about spending public dollars disproportionately on the weatlhier/whiter kids in DCPS, you need to take a minute to think about optics even if you have no regard for equity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the pairing issue, one idea is to cluster schools, so in the example of Lafayette/Shepherd make one PK3-1 and the other grades 2-5 or something. Lafayette gets PK3. the main issue is transportation and managing the schedule when kids in the same family go to both schools. The capitol hill cluster has addressed these issues with some but not complete success.

I would also like to see pairings of DCPS WOTP schools and the EoTP bilingual schools. Some WoTP parents should be willing to send their kids to Marie Reed, Powell, etc. if there is a core of high-performing students. Peeling off Bancroft and Oyster and sending them along with other bilingual schools to MacFarland would be painful but the best thing for Deal and Wilson and MacFarland and Roosevelt. That would also enable Adams to be repurposed, potentially for more early childhood seats

The math doesn't work though. Right now at Lafayette alone, the PK-1st population is around 350, which already exceeds the number of kids at Shepherd currently. Even if you did PK3-K it would be tight. So then you're looking at expansion...

What if Shepherd became the ECE center and Lafayette K-5 -- That actually has tons of appeal in my mind (Lafayette mom here). It would also address what is sure to be overcrowding at Lafayette which will be at capacity next year (12 months after the building renovation...)

I love this. It will also bring some much needed diversity to both Lafayette and Shepherd. Shepherd is IB so either they'd need to drop it or Lafayette would have to adopt.

And since you'd be adding more PK3 spots, you neither school would lose much funding, but the overall student matriculation would drop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the pairing issue, one idea is to cluster schools, so in the example of Lafayette/Shepherd make one PK3-1 and the other grades 2-5 or something. Lafayette gets PK3. the main issue is transportation and managing the schedule when kids in the same family go to both schools. The capitol hill cluster has addressed these issues with some but not complete success.

I would also like to see pairings of DCPS WOTP schools and the EoTP bilingual schools. Some WoTP parents should be willing to send their kids to Marie Reed, Powell, etc. if there is a core of high-performing students. Peeling off Bancroft and Oyster and sending them along with other bilingual schools to MacFarland would be painful but the best thing for Deal and Wilson and MacFarland and Roosevelt. That would also enable Adams to be repurposed, potentially for more early childhood seats

The math doesn't work though. Right now at Lafayette alone, the PK-1st population is around 350, which already exceeds the number of kids at Shepherd currently. Even if you did PK3-K it would be tight. So then you're looking at expansion...

What if Shepherd became the ECE center and Lafayette K-5 -- That actually has tons of appeal in my mind (Lafayette mom here). It would also address what is sure to be overcrowding at Lafayette which will be at capacity next year (12 months after the building renovation...)

I love this. It will also bring some much needed diversity to both Lafayette and Shepherd. Shepherd is IB so either they'd need to drop it or Lafayette would have to adopt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the pairing issue, one idea is to cluster schools, so in the example of Lafayette/Shepherd make one PK3-1 and the other grades 2-5 or something. Lafayette gets PK3. the main issue is transportation and managing the schedule when kids in the same family go to both schools. The capitol hill cluster has addressed these issues with some but not complete success.

I would also like to see pairings of DCPS WOTP schools and the EoTP bilingual schools. Some WoTP parents should be willing to send their kids to Marie Reed, Powell, etc. if there is a core of high-performing students. Peeling off Bancroft and Oyster and sending them along with other bilingual schools to MacFarland would be painful but the best thing for Deal and Wilson and MacFarland and Roosevelt. That would also enable Adams to be repurposed, potentially for more early childhood seats

The math doesn't work though. Right now at Lafayette alone, the PK-1st population is around 350, which already exceeds the number of kids at Shepherd currently. Even if you did PK3-K it would be tight. So then you're looking at expansion...

What if Shepherd became the ECE center and Lafayette K-5 -- That actually has tons of appeal in my mind (Lafayette mom here). It would also address what is sure to be overcrowding at Lafayette which will be at capacity next year (12 months after the building renovation...)

Anonymous wrote:Look people, we're throwing out ideas here!

Join the brainstorm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this as a thought experiment. Start at an extreme - like private school tuition. Fund MacFarland at $40,000 per student operating funds, and use that money wisely to work on school culture and offer attractive programs - honors, small pull outs, extra-curriculars, etc. I think you'd find a significant number of people would choose that over Deal. Not all, but enough to help with overcrowding.

But that's clearly too much money. So what about $30,000 per student? What would that look like and how attractive would it be? $20,000? Find the sweet spot that reduces the pressure on Deal, and actually might benefit a large number of disadvantaged kids. But we probably lack the political will to spend that much on kids.

I agree with your thought experiment - there must be some hypothetical amount of programming money that DCPS could spend at MacFarland to make it attractive enough to peel off students from Deal. If, for example, we offer every student a 5:1 ratio of students to teachers, steak and ice cream for lunch every day, and pony rides before school, then MacFarland will get filled. The problem is that DCPS clearly doesn't know how to target programming to attract students. So lots of that spending on programming has only marginal returns in attracting students (e.g., kids like ice cream but don't really care about the steak, so that's wasted money). The cash-payout program is sort of the logical extreme of your own thought experiment: If DCPS just hands out cold cash instead of programming, how much cash is required to get students to join MacFarland? While it may feel unsavory, I'm betting the cash is more of a motivator than the programming, and I'm betting it's also cheaper for DCPS.

It's different because the end goal of DCPS is to educate kids. Better educated students is a public good. Paying people cash to move them around doesn't do that and it's just creepy. At least paying ridiculous amounts of $$ for education could do some good.

But most agree that there isnt' really anything wrong with Macfarland, except there aren't enough higher SES children to balance out the student body and make parents comfortable with teh idea of going there. The curriculum is the same at MacFarland and Hardy, the teachers have the same credentials. For all we know, the teachers may even be better than ones at Deal.

What this is about is what will actually make enough people take that leap.

Believe it or not, some people aren't hung up on high SES, as if there's some kind of osmotic action going on that imparts education from high SES kids. There are correlations between high SES kids and test scores, but that doesn't mean they are causing it.
For those of you who can't get over the high SES thing, stay at Deal. I think enough people would be willing to go for a school with large numbers of low SES kids if the right culture and academics are there. As long as I see a path for my kids to be safe and grow, I'll do it. I'd absolutely bet that $40,000 per year would make that happen, and probably for something less than that.

Wait. You really expect to get cash?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this as a thought experiment. Start at an extreme - like private school tuition. Fund MacFarland at $40,000 per student operating funds, and use that money wisely to work on school culture and offer attractive programs - honors, small pull outs, extra-curriculars, etc. I think you'd find a significant number of people would choose that over Deal. Not all, but enough to help with overcrowding.

But that's clearly too much money. So what about $30,000 per student? What would that look like and how attractive would it be? $20,000? Find the sweet spot that reduces the pressure on Deal, and actually might benefit a large number of disadvantaged kids. But we probably lack the political will to spend that much on kids.

I agree with your thought experiment - there must be some hypothetical amount of programming money that DCPS could spend at MacFarland to make it attractive enough to peel off students from Deal. If, for example, we offer every student a 5:1 ratio of students to teachers, steak and ice cream for lunch every day, and pony rides before school, then MacFarland will get filled. The problem is that DCPS clearly doesn't know how to target programming to attract students. So lots of that spending on programming has only marginal returns in attracting students (e.g., kids like ice cream but don't really care about the steak, so that's wasted money). The cash-payout program is sort of the logical extreme of your own thought experiment: If DCPS just hands out cold cash instead of programming, how much cash is required to get students to join MacFarland? While it may feel unsavory, I'm betting the cash is more of a motivator than the programming, and I'm betting it's also cheaper for DCPS.

It's different because the end goal of DCPS is to educate kids. Better educated students is a public good. Paying people cash to move them around doesn't do that and it's just creepy. At least paying ridiculous amounts of $$ for education could do some good.

But most agree that there isnt' really anything wrong with Macfarland, except there aren't enough higher SES children to balance out the student body and make parents comfortable with teh idea of going there. The curriculum is the same at MacFarland and Hardy, the teachers have the same credentials. For all we know, the teachers may even be better than ones at Deal.

What this is about is what will actually make enough people take that leap.

Believe it or not, some people aren't hung up on high SES, as if there's some kind of osmotic action going on that imparts education from high SES kids. There are correlations between high SES kids and test scores, but that doesn't mean they are causing it.
For those of you who can't get over the high SES thing, stay at Deal. I think enough people would be willing to go for a school with large numbers of low SES kids if the right culture and academics are there. As long as I see a path for my kids to be safe and grow, I'll do it. I'd absolutely bet that $40,000 per year would make that happen, and probably for something less than that.

I don't know what you are reading, but there are indeed many studies showing how SES impacts educational achievement. "The relationship between family socio-economic status (SES) and the academic performance of children is well established in sociological research.

https://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/SPRCFile/NSPC01_7_Considine_Zappala.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education.aspx
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Willingham.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this as a thought experiment. Start at an extreme - like private school tuition. Fund MacFarland at $40,000 per student operating funds, and use that money wisely to work on school culture and offer attractive programs - honors, small pull outs, extra-curriculars, etc. I think you'd find a significant number of people would choose that over Deal. Not all, but enough to help with overcrowding.

But that's clearly too much money. So what about $30,000 per student? What would that look like and how attractive would it be? $20,000? Find the sweet spot that reduces the pressure on Deal, and actually might benefit a large number of disadvantaged kids. But we probably lack the political will to spend that much on kids.

I agree with your thought experiment - there must be some hypothetical amount of programming money that DCPS could spend at MacFarland to make it attractive enough to peel off students from Deal. If, for example, we offer every student a 5:1 ratio of students to teachers, steak and ice cream for lunch every day, and pony rides before school, then MacFarland will get filled. The problem is that DCPS clearly doesn't know how to target programming to attract students. So lots of that spending on programming has only marginal returns in attracting students (e.g., kids like ice cream but don't really care about the steak, so that's wasted money). The cash-payout program is sort of the logical extreme of your own thought experiment: If DCPS just hands out cold cash instead of programming, how much cash is required to get students to join MacFarland? While it may feel unsavory, I'm betting the cash is more of a motivator than the programming, and I'm betting it's also cheaper for DCPS.

It's different because the end goal of DCPS is to educate kids. Better educated students is a public good. Paying people cash to move them around doesn't do that and it's just creepy. At least paying ridiculous amounts of $$ for education could do some good.

But most agree that there isnt' really anything wrong with Macfarland, except there aren't enough higher SES children to balance out the student body and make parents comfortable with teh idea of going there. The curriculum is the same at MacFarland and Hardy, the teachers have the same credentials. For all we know, the teachers may even be better than ones at Deal.

What this is about is what will actually make enough people take that leap.

Believe it or not, some people aren't hung up on high SES, as if there's some kind of osmotic action going on that imparts education from high SES kids. There are correlations between high SES kids and test scores, but that doesn't mean they are causing it.
For those of you who can't get over the high SES thing, stay at Deal. I think enough people would be willing to go for a school with large numbers of low SES kids if the right culture and academics are there. As long as I see a path for my kids to be safe and grow, I'll do it. I'd absolutely bet that $40,000 per year would make that happen, and probably for something less than that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this as a thought experiment. Start at an extreme - like private school tuition. Fund MacFarland at $40,000 per student operating funds, and use that money wisely to work on school culture and offer attractive programs - honors, small pull outs, extra-curriculars, etc. I think you'd find a significant number of people would choose that over Deal. Not all, but enough to help with overcrowding.

But that's clearly too much money. So what about $30,000 per student? What would that look like and how attractive would it be? $20,000? Find the sweet spot that reduces the pressure on Deal, and actually might benefit a large number of disadvantaged kids. But we probably lack the political will to spend that much on kids.

I agree with your thought experiment - there must be some hypothetical amount of programming money that DCPS could spend at MacFarland to make it attractive enough to peel off students from Deal. If, for example, we offer every student a 5:1 ratio of students to teachers, steak and ice cream for lunch every day, and pony rides before school, then MacFarland will get filled. The problem is that DCPS clearly doesn't know how to target programming to attract students. So lots of that spending on programming has only marginal returns in attracting students (e.g., kids like ice cream but don't really care about the steak, so that's wasted money). The cash-payout program is sort of the logical extreme of your own thought experiment: If DCPS just hands out cold cash instead of programming, how much cash is required to get students to join MacFarland? While it may feel unsavory, I'm betting the cash is more of a motivator than the programming, and I'm betting it's also cheaper for DCPS.

It's different because the end goal of DCPS is to educate kids. Better educated students is a public good. Paying people cash to move them around doesn't do that and it's just creepy. At least paying ridiculous amounts of $$ for education could do some good.

But most agree that there isnt' really anything wrong with Macfarland, except there aren't enough higher SES children to balance out the student body and make parents comfortable with teh idea of going there. The curriculum is the same at MacFarland and Hardy, the teachers have the same credentials. For all we know, the teachers may even be better than ones at Deal.

What this is about is what will actually make enough people take that leap.

Believe it or not, some people aren't hung up on high SES, as if there's some kind of osmotic action going on that imparts education from high SES kids. There are correlations between high SES kids and test scores, but that doesn't mean they are causing it.
For those of you who can't get over the high SES thing, stay at Deal. I think enough people would be willing to go for a school with large numbers of low SES kids if the right culture and academics are there. As long as I see a path for my kids to be safe and grow, I'll do it. I'd absolutely bet that $40,000 per year would make that happen, and probably for something less than that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take this as a thought experiment. Start at an extreme - like private school tuition. Fund MacFarland at $40,000 per student operating funds, and use that money wisely to work on school culture and offer attractive programs - honors, small pull outs, extra-curriculars, etc. I think you'd find a significant number of people would choose that over Deal. Not all, but enough to help with overcrowding.

But that's clearly too much money. So what about $30,000 per student? What would that look like and how attractive would it be? $20,000? Find the sweet spot that reduces the pressure on Deal, and actually might benefit a large number of disadvantaged kids. But we probably lack the political will to spend that much on kids.

I agree with your thought experiment - there must be some hypothetical amount of programming money that DCPS could spend at MacFarland to make it attractive enough to peel off students from Deal. If, for example, we offer every student a 5:1 ratio of students to teachers, steak and ice cream for lunch every day, and pony rides before school, then MacFarland will get filled. The problem is that DCPS clearly doesn't know how to target programming to attract students. So lots of that spending on programming has only marginal returns in attracting students (e.g., kids like ice cream but don't really care about the steak, so that's wasted money). The cash-payout program is sort of the logical extreme of your own thought experiment: If DCPS just hands out cold cash instead of programming, how much cash is required to get students to join MacFarland? While it may feel unsavory, I'm betting the cash is more of a motivator than the programming, and I'm betting it's also cheaper for DCPS.

It's different because the end goal of DCPS is to educate kids. Better educated students is a public good. Paying people cash to move them around doesn't do that and it's just creepy. At least paying ridiculous amounts of $$ for education could do some good.

I don't know what you are reading, but there are indeed many studies showing how SES impacts educational achievement. "The relationship between family socio-economic status (SES) and the academic performance of children is well established in sociological research.

https://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/SPRCFile/NSPC01_7_Considine_Zappala.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education.aspx
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Willingham.pdf


But most agree that there isnt' really anything wrong with Macfarland, except there aren't enough higher SES children to balance out the student body and make parents comfortable with teh idea of going there. The curriculum is the same at MacFarland and Hardy, the teachers have the same credentials. For all we know, the teachers may even be better than ones at Deal.

What this is about is what will actually make enough people take that leap.

Believe it or not, some people aren't hung up on high SES, as if there's some kind of osmotic action going on that imparts education from high SES kids. There are correlations between high SES kids and test scores, but that doesn't mean they are causing it.
For those of you who can't get over the high SES thing, stay at Deal. I think enough people would be willing to go for a school with large numbers of low SES kids if the right culture and academics are there. As long as I see a path for my kids to be safe and grow, I'll do it. I'd absolutely bet that $40,000 per year would make that happen, and probably for something less than that.