Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve often wondered why those clamoring for reducing car traffic on Connecticut, Wisconsin, and 16th street didn’t first begin their advocacy with getting rid of the OOB school system. Everyday there a literally thousands of car trips of speeding parents shuttling their kids all over town. I know many of them and none use transit or bikes. Requiring kids to attend their neighborhood schools would have major safety and environmental benefits overnight. At zero cost. Worth a conversation?

Charters and OOB are what enable parents to live in neighborhoods with not good schools instead of moving away. Eliminating that would in fact be very high cost. OOB DCPS students are just a small fraction of kids who are going to a school that's not within walking distance - the much bigger issue is charters and, no, no one is getting rid of those so you can have better traffic. But the traditional answer to this is school buses, which you are free to advocate for.

Is it true that OOB DCPS are a small fraction? I’ve often wondered why the lottery isn’t charter only. (And we’re a family OOB at a DCPS.)

Half the kids in DC are in charters! And the lottery for DCPS schools is to fill empty spots and for schools that are not by-right. Ending feeder pattern rights may make sense -- but I think they are doing that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve often wondered why those clamoring for reducing car traffic on Connecticut, Wisconsin, and 16th street didn’t first begin their advocacy with getting rid of the OOB school system. Everyday there a literally thousands of car trips of speeding parents shuttling their kids all over town. I know many of them and none use transit or bikes. Requiring kids to attend their neighborhood schools would have major safety and environmental benefits overnight. At zero cost. Worth a conversation?

Charters and OOB are what enable parents to live in neighborhoods with not good schools instead of moving away. Eliminating that would in fact be very high cost. OOB DCPS students are just a small fraction of kids who are going to a school that's not within walking distance - the much bigger issue is charters and, no, no one is getting rid of those so you can have better traffic. But the traditional answer to this is school buses, which you are free to advocate for.

Is it true that OOB DCPS are a small fraction? I’ve often wondered why the lottery isn’t charter only. (And we’re a family OOB at a DCPS.)

Half the kids in DC are in charters! And the lottery for DCPS schools is to fill empty spots and for schools that are not by-right. Ending feeder pattern rights may make sense -- but I think they are doing that?

Anonymous wrote:I’ve often wondered why those clamoring for reducing car traffic on Connecticut, Wisconsin, and 16th street didn’t first begin their advocacy with getting rid of the OOB school system. Everyday there a literally thousands of car trips of speeding parents shuttling their kids all over town. I know many of them and none use transit or bikes. Requiring kids to attend their neighborhood schools would have major safety and environmental benefits overnight. At zero cost. Worth a conversation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve often wondered why those clamoring for reducing car traffic on Connecticut, Wisconsin, and 16th street didn’t first begin their advocacy with getting rid of the OOB school system. Everyday there a literally thousands of car trips of speeding parents shuttling their kids all over town. I know many of them and none use transit or bikes. Requiring kids to attend their neighborhood schools would have major safety and environmental benefits overnight. At zero cost. Worth a conversation?

Charters and OOB are what enable parents to live in neighborhoods with not good schools instead of moving away. Eliminating that would in fact be very high cost. OOB DCPS students are just a small fraction of kids who are going to a school that's not within walking distance - the much bigger issue is charters and, no, no one is getting rid of those so you can have better traffic. But the traditional answer to this is school buses, which you are free to advocate for.

Is it true that OOB DCPS are a small fraction? I’ve often wondered why the lottery isn’t charter only. (And we’re a family OOB at a DCPS.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve often wondered why those clamoring for reducing car traffic on Connecticut, Wisconsin, and 16th street didn’t first begin their advocacy with getting rid of the OOB school system. Everyday there a literally thousands of car trips of speeding parents shuttling their kids all over town. I know many of them and none use transit or bikes. Requiring kids to attend their neighborhood schools would have major safety and environmental benefits overnight. At zero cost. Worth a conversation?

Charters and OOB are what enable parents to live in neighborhoods with not good schools instead of moving away. Eliminating that would in fact be very high cost. OOB DCPS students are just a small fraction of kids who are going to a school that's not within walking distance - the much bigger issue is charters and, no, no one is getting rid of those so you can have better traffic. But the traditional answer to this is school buses, which you are free to advocate for.

Is it true that OOB DCPS are a small fraction? I’ve often wondered why the lottery isn’t charter only. (And we’re a family OOB at a DCPS.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve often wondered why those clamoring for reducing car traffic on Connecticut, Wisconsin, and 16th street didn’t first begin their advocacy with getting rid of the OOB school system. Everyday there a literally thousands of car trips of speeding parents shuttling their kids all over town. I know many of them and none use transit or bikes. Requiring kids to attend their neighborhood schools would have major safety and environmental benefits overnight. At zero cost. Worth a conversation?

Charters and OOB are what enable parents to live in neighborhoods with not good schools instead of moving away. Eliminating that would in fact be very high cost. OOB DCPS students are just a small fraction of kids who are going to a school that's not within walking distance - the much bigger issue is charters and, no, no one is getting rid of those so you can have better traffic. But the traditional answer to this is school buses, which you are free to advocate for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Highest in-boundary usage schools:

Janney Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Murch Elementary School
Stoddert Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Eaton Elementary School
Hardy Middle School
Oyster-Adams Bilingual School
Ross Elementary School
Hyde-Addison Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Brent Elementary School
Shepherd Elementary School

Honestly surprised that Hardy is higher than Deal. Will the same be true of Macarthur and JR in 5-10 years?

Lots of families in the Deal feeder go private after elementary.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve often wondered why those clamoring for reducing car traffic on Connecticut, Wisconsin, and 16th street didn’t first begin their advocacy with getting rid of the OOB school system. Everyday there a literally thousands of car trips of speeding parents shuttling their kids all over town. I know many of them and none use transit or bikes. Requiring kids to attend their neighborhood schools would have major safety and environmental benefits overnight. At zero cost. Worth a conversation?

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I would like to know how many DCPS middle schoolers don’t continue on to a DCPS (or DCPCS) HS - whether their IB or an application school (Banneker, SWW, DESA, etc.). But you can’t ask this Q of this data set. It would be too difficult and expensive to get this data and of course, it wouldn’t be in CO’s best interests to find out so we will probably never know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take Garrison for an example. In the SY 19-20 data file, there are 291 kids at Garrison, 125 of them are IB. There are 503 grade-specific kids living in the boundary. So the school is 43% IB and the participation rate is 25% (rounding). Students in the boundary attend 81 schools, listed are Meridian, Mundo, Marie Reed, LAMB, Seaton, Cleveland, Hyde-Addison, Yu Ying, and Inspired Teaching.


In the 21-22 data, Garrison has 331 kids-- more than 10% enrollment growth in two years, wow! 138 are IB. There are 456 grade-specific kids living in the boundary (big drop!). So the school is 42% IB and the participation rate is 30%. So to me this spells improvement. Students living in the boundary attend 78 schools, listed are Meridian, Mundo Verde, Marie Reed, LAMB, and Seaton-- that's all.

The “improvement” is pure math. The participation rate “increased” 5% because the the number of kids living in bound decrease. Therefore if you reduced the denominator your result will be higher.

No it's not "pure math". Garrison has more total IB kids, and that's true *despite* a smaller pool of potential IB students to draw from. It's a small change so could be random, but it's consistent with improvement. It certainly isn't worse.

It is math. It isn’t worse, but is not a big deal as you think it is.

I mean, how could it not be math? It's a data set containing numbers.

I don't think it's a big deal, but long-term improvements are often built over many years of small but consistent improvements. And it was just an example of how comparing multiple years of this data set could be interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take Garrison for an example. In the SY 19-20 data file, there are 291 kids at Garrison, 125 of them are IB. There are 503 grade-specific kids living in the boundary. So the school is 43% IB and the participation rate is 25% (rounding). Students in the boundary attend 81 schools, listed are Meridian, Mundo, Marie Reed, LAMB, Seaton, Cleveland, Hyde-Addison, Yu Ying, and Inspired Teaching.


In the 21-22 data, Garrison has 331 kids-- more than 10% enrollment growth in two years, wow! 138 are IB. There are 456 grade-specific kids living in the boundary (big drop!). So the school is 42% IB and the participation rate is 30%. So to me this spells improvement. Students living in the boundary attend 78 schools, listed are Meridian, Mundo Verde, Marie Reed, LAMB, and Seaton-- that's all.

The “improvement” is pure math. The participation rate “increased” 5% because the the number of kids living in bound decrease. Therefore if you reduced the denominator your result will be higher.

No it's not "pure math". Garrison has more total IB kids, and that's true *despite* a smaller pool of potential IB students to draw from. It's a small change so could be random, but it's consistent with improvement. It certainly isn't worse.

It is math. It isn’t worse, but is not a big deal as you think it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take Garrison for an example. In the SY 19-20 data file, there are 291 kids at Garrison, 125 of them are IB. There are 503 grade-specific kids living in the boundary. So the school is 43% IB and the participation rate is 25% (rounding). Students in the boundary attend 81 schools, listed are Meridian, Mundo, Marie Reed, LAMB, Seaton, Cleveland, Hyde-Addison, Yu Ying, and Inspired Teaching.


In the 21-22 data, Garrison has 331 kids-- more than 10% enrollment growth in two years, wow! 138 are IB. There are 456 grade-specific kids living in the boundary (big drop!). So the school is 42% IB and the participation rate is 30%. So to me this spells improvement. Students living in the boundary attend 78 schools, listed are Meridian, Mundo Verde, Marie Reed, LAMB, and Seaton-- that's all.

The “improvement” is pure math. The participation rate “increased” 5% because the the number of kids living in bound decrease. Therefore if you reduced the denominator your result will be higher.

No it's not "pure math". Garrison has more total IB kids, and that's true *despite* a smaller pool of potential IB students to draw from. It's a small change so could be random, but it's consistent with improvement. It certainly isn't worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bump. This data is fascinating!

+1 I will use these data every time a poster claims that most kids in their neighborhood attend their IB and no a charter school. Data > DCUM’s opinion

Yep. Clip and save for every time someone trots out “won’t send your kids to school with your neighbors.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take Garrison for an example. In the SY 19-20 data file, there are 291 kids at Garrison, 125 of them are IB. There are 503 grade-specific kids living in the boundary. So the school is 43% IB and the participation rate is 25% (rounding). Students in the boundary attend 81 schools, listed are Meridian, Mundo, Marie Reed, LAMB, Seaton, Cleveland, Hyde-Addison, Yu Ying, and Inspired Teaching.


In the 21-22 data, Garrison has 331 kids-- more than 10% enrollment growth in two years, wow! 138 are IB. There are 456 grade-specific kids living in the boundary (big drop!). So the school is 42% IB and the participation rate is 30%. So to me this spells improvement. Students living in the boundary attend 78 schools, listed are Meridian, Mundo Verde, Marie Reed, LAMB, and Seaton-- that's all.

The “improvement” is pure math. The participation rate “increased” 5% because the the number of kids living in bound decrease. Therefore if you reduced the denominator your result will be higher.