Anonymous
10/17/2024 14:17
Subject: October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:Same poster as above with demographic link. I just read more from my own link, and it looks like, compared to the rest of the city, the birth rate on the hill fell precipitously after 2020. So, yeah. Fewer 5 year olds were born from that area and thus fewer entered K.
Just fyi that current K students were born in late 2018 or in 2019. So I agree with what you’re saying but the impact is more on PK.
Anonymous
10/17/2024 12:00
Subject: October Data Available
Same poster as above with demographic link. I just read more from my own link, and it looks like, compared to the rest of the city, the birth rate on the hill fell precipitously after 2020. So, yeah. Fewer 5 year olds were born from that area and thus fewer entered K.
Anonymous
10/17/2024 11:58
Subject: Re:October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to track the Hill elementary school situation. A few things that stuck out to me:
Maury – K took 4 this year with Proxmity, 7 with no preference, 22 WL offers made by Oct. Last year it was 7 with Proximity and 2 with No preference with 1 WL offer made by Oct. It looks like across every grade there were significantly more WL offers by Oct.
Ludlow – K took 2 this year with sibling offered, and 13 with no preference, 6 WL offers by Oct.
Prek3 had 11 WL offers and Prek4 had 10. Last year, K took 2 sibling attending 1 sibling offered, 3 proximity and 9 no preference. 5 grade had only 5 lottery seats and made 7 WL offers by October.
Peabody: prek3 this year only had 10 in boundary sibling matches on match day. 23 had 23, 22 had 33 and 21 had 21. This is a huge drop-off. Prek took no kids out of boundary in the previous 3 years and this year they took 17. They made 39 prek 4 WL offers by Oct. K matched 29 no preference kids this year, ten more than last year.
Brents numbers of prek3,4, and K were more consistent.
Questions this raises for me -
Where are the Hill kids? It seems like more kids with no preference are heading to the Hill schools. Is this Hill kids swapping schools or are Hill kids headed somewhere else? Are there fewer of them?
Did the Miner / Maury situation impact families choosing Maury opening spots for out of boundary kids?
Does this mean that more Ludlow kids are staying for 5th to go to SH (that's the word in the neighborhood)?
What is going on at Peabody? The numbers indicate that older siblings are not going to Watkins therefore there is fewer sibling preference kids at Peabody? - personally this is what we did so our younger one shows up in the "In boundary" bucket on match day because their older sibling is somewhere else.
I haven't had time yet to look at JO, Miner, Payne, Tyler, but curious what takeaways other have. I can't figure out if there's a general "inboundary kids going to inboundary schools with exception of Peabody/Watkins" story here or a "fewer Hill kids" story here or what.
Demographic trends generally in the District show fewer children being born right now. There was a blip up in 2010 which fits with the very competitive year last year at the high school level and then the birth rate has fallen.
https://edscape.dc.gov/page/pop-and-students-number-births-and-birth-rates#:~:text=Birth%20rates%2C%20measured%20as%20the,per%201%2C000%20population%20in%202022.
It's also possible that during COVID fewer families with young children / about to have families chose the Hill or the District writ large.
Anonymous
10/17/2024 10:40
Subject: October Data Available
does anyone have any insight of what’s going on at stoddert? they took a ton of K and 1st graders from the waitlist this year (esp relatively speaking to past years where the school was almost impossible to get)? is there a big student expansion planned?
Anonymous
10/17/2024 09:19
Subject: Re:October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to track the Hill elementary school situation. A few things that stuck out to me:
Maury – K took 4 this year with Proxmity, 7 with no preference, 22 WL offers made by Oct. Last year it was 7 with Proximity and 2 with No preference with 1 WL offer made by Oct. It looks like across every grade there were significantly more WL offers by Oct.
Ludlow – K took 2 this year with sibling offered, and 13 with no preference, 6 WL offers by Oct.
Prek3 had 11 WL offers and Prek4 had 10. Last year, K took 2 sibling attending 1 sibling offered, 3 proximity and 9 no preference. 5 grade had only 5 lottery seats and made 7 WL offers by October.
Peabody: prek3 this year only had 10 in boundary sibling matches on match day. 23 had 23, 22 had 33 and 21 had 21. This is a huge drop-off. Prek took no kids out of boundary in the previous 3 years and this year they took 17. They made 39 prek 4 WL offers by Oct. K matched 29 no preference kids this year, ten more than last year.
Brents numbers of prek3,4, and K were more consistent.
Questions this raises for me -
Where are the Hill kids? It seems like more kids with no preference are heading to the Hill schools. Is this Hill kids swapping schools or are Hill kids headed somewhere else? Are there fewer of them?
Did the Miner / Maury situation impact families choosing Maury opening spots for out of boundary kids?
Does this mean that more Ludlow kids are staying for 5th to go to SH (that's the word in the neighborhood)?
What is going on at Peabody? The numbers indicate that older siblings are not going to Watkins therefore there is fewer sibling preference kids at Peabody? - personally this is what we did so our younger one shows up in the "In boundary" bucket on match day because their older sibling is somewhere else.
I haven't had time yet to look at JO, Miner, Payne, Tyler, but curious what takeaways other have. I can't figure out if there's a general "inboundary kids going to inboundary schools with exception of Peabody/Watkins" story here or a "fewer Hill kids" story here or what.
My impression is that more families are staying on the Hill post elementary school. Thus, fewer young families are moving in, or just having babies/toddlers now. I'm sure the inbound enrollment will peak again soon. This is anecdotal among the Hill community.
Anonymous
10/16/2024 22:06
Subject: Re:October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to track the Hill elementary school situation. A few things that stuck out to me:
Maury – K took 4 this year with Proxmity, 7 with no preference, 22 WL offers made by Oct. Last year it was 7 with Proximity and 2 with No preference with 1 WL offer made by Oct. It looks like across every grade there were significantly more WL offers by Oct.
Ludlow – K took 2 this year with sibling offered, and 13 with no preference, 6 WL offers by Oct.
Prek3 had 11 WL offers and Prek4 had 10. Last year, K took 2 sibling attending 1 sibling offered, 3 proximity and 9 no preference. 5 grade had only 5 lottery seats and made 7 WL offers by October.
Peabody: prek3 this year only had 10 in boundary sibling matches on match day. 23 had 23, 22 had 33 and 21 had 21. This is a huge drop-off. Prek took no kids out of boundary in the previous 3 years and this year they took 17. They made 39 prek 4 WL offers by Oct. K matched 29 no preference kids this year, ten more than last year.
Brents numbers of prek3,4, and K were more consistent.
Questions this raises for me -
Where are the Hill kids? It seems like more kids with no preference are heading to the Hill schools. Is this Hill kids swapping schools or are Hill kids headed somewhere else? Are there fewer of them?
Did the Miner / Maury situation impact families choosing Maury opening spots for out of boundary kids?
Does this mean that more Ludlow kids are staying for 5th to go to SH (that's the word in the neighborhood)?
What is going on at Peabody? The numbers indicate that older siblings are not going to Watkins therefore there is fewer sibling preference kids at Peabody? - personally this is what we did so our younger one shows up in the "In boundary" bucket on match day because their older sibling is somewhere else.
I haven't had time yet to look at JO, Miner, Payne, Tyler, but curious what takeaways other have. I can't figure out if there's a general "inboundary kids going to inboundary schools with exception of Peabody/Watkins" story here or a "fewer Hill kids" story here or what.
A better way to get at these kinds of questions is to look at the Enrollment Pathways data. Only through SY23-24 though. https://edscape.dc.gov/page/student-enrollment-pathways
Maybe combined with Enrollment Trends of Specific Public Schools: https://edscape.dc.gov/page/enrollment-trends-specific-public-schools
Anonymous
10/16/2024 21:27
Subject: Re:October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to track the Hill elementary school situation. A few things that stuck out to me:
Maury – K took 4 this year with Proxmity, 7 with no preference, 22 WL offers made by Oct. Last year it was 7 with Proximity and 2 with No preference with 1 WL offer made by Oct. It looks like across every grade there were significantly more WL offers by Oct.
Ludlow – K took 2 this year with sibling offered, and 13 with no preference, 6 WL offers by Oct.
Prek3 had 11 WL offers and Prek4 had 10. Last year, K took 2 sibling attending 1 sibling offered, 3 proximity and 9 no preference. 5 grade had only 5 lottery seats and made 7 WL offers by October.
Peabody: prek3 this year only had 10 in boundary sibling matches on match day. 23 had 23, 22 had 33 and 21 had 21. This is a huge drop-off. Prek took no kids out of boundary in the previous 3 years and this year they took 17. They made 39 prek 4 WL offers by Oct. K matched 29 no preference kids this year, ten more than last year.
Brents numbers of prek3,4, and K were more consistent.
Questions this raises for me -
Where are the Hill kids? It seems like more kids with no preference are heading to the Hill schools. Is this Hill kids swapping schools or are Hill kids headed somewhere else? Are there fewer of them?
Did the Miner / Maury situation impact families choosing Maury opening spots for out of boundary kids?
Does this mean that more Ludlow kids are staying for 5th to go to SH (that's the word in the neighborhood)?
What is going on at Peabody? The numbers indicate that older siblings are not going to Watkins therefore there is fewer sibling preference kids at Peabody? - personally this is what we did so our younger one shows up in the "In boundary" bucket on match day because their older sibling is somewhere else.
I haven't had time yet to look at JO, Miner, Payne, Tyler, but curious what takeaways other have. I can't figure out if there's a general "inboundary kids going to inboundary schools with exception of Peabody/Watkins" story here or a "fewer Hill kids" story here or what.
A better way to get at these kinds of questions is to look at the Enrollment Pathways data. Only through SY23-24 though. https://edscape.dc.gov/page/student-enrollment-pathways
Anonymous
10/16/2024 20:59
Subject: October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:I think what happened in the initial round of equitable action preference was that schools weren't expecting quite so many other schools to offer it. DCPS announced quite late that they would be doing it at a dozen or so schools. So it's not surprising that with a big increase in supply, seats at each individual school didn't fill as much as anticipated. There are only so many eligible kids.
Not saying that reasoning applies to BASIS because they didn't participate that year.
I also don't really understand how it works, can the same kid be on a waitlist at a single school for both EA and regular lottery?
What??? The posted data is from the most recent lottery year. EA seats were not oversubscribed. How is everything else you posted relevant?
Anonymous
10/16/2024 20:57
Subject: Re:October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.
Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.
They don't apply because that's not what they're looking for. Just like UMC kids don't apply to KIPP schools. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either model.
Oooh you said the quiet part loud! At-risk kids just don't like BASIS. Oke doke.
NP. They didn't say that. The DATA SAID THAT.
No, the data said there aren't very many. You made up the reason.
Do you think they filled out the form incorrectly?
LOL. Funny how that works, right? Seats were made available in EA and the demand was lower than the DCUM cabal predicted. But we can't possibly conclude that at risk families chose not to select BASIS or Latin. That's...too big of a leap?
Anonymous
10/16/2024 19:10
Subject: October Data Available
I think fewer IB kids right now in those early elementary grades. A weird post-pandemic thing.
Ludlow has been consistently sending 25 or so 5th graders to SH every year for some time now. Some of those families did not get into either Latin or Basis, some turned down Basis, some did not lottery. Same story across the Hill.
While it may surprise most readers here, the number of families who in 5th grade state that they previously knew nothing about the DC 5th grade charter school lottery is pretty high and that is especially true for at-risk students.
Ludlow has been consistently sending 25 or so 5th graders to SH every year for some time now. Some of those families did not get into either Latin or Basis, some turned down Basis, some did not lottery. Same story across the Hill.
While it may surprise most readers here, the number of families who in 5th grade state that they previously knew nothing about the DC 5th grade charter school lottery is pretty high and that is especially true for at-risk students.
Anonymous
10/16/2024 18:42
Subject: Re:October Data Available
I'm trying to track the Hill elementary school situation. A few things that stuck out to me:
Maury – K took 4 this year with Proxmity, 7 with no preference, 22 WL offers made by Oct. Last year it was 7 with Proximity and 2 with No preference with 1 WL offer made by Oct. It looks like across every grade there were significantly more WL offers by Oct.
Ludlow – K took 2 this year with sibling offered, and 13 with no preference, 6 WL offers by Oct.
Prek3 had 11 WL offers and Prek4 had 10. Last year, K took 2 sibling attending 1 sibling offered, 3 proximity and 9 no preference. 5 grade had only 5 lottery seats and made 7 WL offers by October.
Peabody: prek3 this year only had 10 in boundary sibling matches on match day. 23 had 23, 22 had 33 and 21 had 21. This is a huge drop-off. Prek took no kids out of boundary in the previous 3 years and this year they took 17. They made 39 prek 4 WL offers by Oct. K matched 29 no preference kids this year, ten more than last year.
Brents numbers of prek3,4, and K were more consistent.
Questions this raises for me -
Where are the Hill kids? It seems like more kids with no preference are heading to the Hill schools. Is this Hill kids swapping schools or are Hill kids headed somewhere else? Are there fewer of them?
Did the Miner / Maury situation impact families choosing Maury opening spots for out of boundary kids?
Does this mean that more Ludlow kids are staying for 5th to go to SH (that's the word in the neighborhood)?
What is going on at Peabody? The numbers indicate that older siblings are not going to Watkins therefore there is fewer sibling preference kids at Peabody? - personally this is what we did so our younger one shows up in the "In boundary" bucket on match day because their older sibling is somewhere else.
I haven't had time yet to look at JO, Miner, Payne, Tyler, but curious what takeaways other have. I can't figure out if there's a general "inboundary kids going to inboundary schools with exception of Peabody/Watkins" story here or a "fewer Hill kids" story here or what.
Maury – K took 4 this year with Proxmity, 7 with no preference, 22 WL offers made by Oct. Last year it was 7 with Proximity and 2 with No preference with 1 WL offer made by Oct. It looks like across every grade there were significantly more WL offers by Oct.
Ludlow – K took 2 this year with sibling offered, and 13 with no preference, 6 WL offers by Oct.
Prek3 had 11 WL offers and Prek4 had 10. Last year, K took 2 sibling attending 1 sibling offered, 3 proximity and 9 no preference. 5 grade had only 5 lottery seats and made 7 WL offers by October.
Peabody: prek3 this year only had 10 in boundary sibling matches on match day. 23 had 23, 22 had 33 and 21 had 21. This is a huge drop-off. Prek took no kids out of boundary in the previous 3 years and this year they took 17. They made 39 prek 4 WL offers by Oct. K matched 29 no preference kids this year, ten more than last year.
Brents numbers of prek3,4, and K were more consistent.
Questions this raises for me -
Where are the Hill kids? It seems like more kids with no preference are heading to the Hill schools. Is this Hill kids swapping schools or are Hill kids headed somewhere else? Are there fewer of them?
Did the Miner / Maury situation impact families choosing Maury opening spots for out of boundary kids?
Does this mean that more Ludlow kids are staying for 5th to go to SH (that's the word in the neighborhood)?
What is going on at Peabody? The numbers indicate that older siblings are not going to Watkins therefore there is fewer sibling preference kids at Peabody? - personally this is what we did so our younger one shows up in the "In boundary" bucket on match day because their older sibling is somewhere else.
I haven't had time yet to look at JO, Miner, Payne, Tyler, but curious what takeaways other have. I can't figure out if there's a general "inboundary kids going to inboundary schools with exception of Peabody/Watkins" story here or a "fewer Hill kids" story here or what.
Anonymous
10/16/2024 17:03
Subject: October Data Available
I think what happened in the initial round of equitable action preference was that schools weren't expecting quite so many other schools to offer it. DCPS announced quite late that they would be doing it at a dozen or so schools. So it's not surprising that with a big increase in supply, seats at each individual school didn't fill as much as anticipated. There are only so many eligible kids.
Not saying that reasoning applies to BASIS because they didn't participate that year.
I also don't really understand how it works, can the same kid be on a waitlist at a single school for both EA and regular lottery?
Not saying that reasoning applies to BASIS because they didn't participate that year.
I also don't really understand how it works, can the same kid be on a waitlist at a single school for both EA and regular lottery?
Anonymous
10/16/2024 16:50
Subject: Re:October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.
Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.
They don't apply because that's not what they're looking for. Just like UMC kids don't apply to KIPP schools. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either model.
Oooh you said the quiet part loud! At-risk kids just don't like BASIS. Oke doke.
NP. They didn't say that. The DATA SAID THAT.
No, the data said there aren't very many. You made up the reason.
Do you think they filled out the form incorrectly?
Personally, I think there are likely a variety of factors. I would not assert that BASIS isn't what they are looking for, in general and whatever that actually means. And the point is, even if that's true, it's not something BASIS likes to say aloud
There are systematic differences by at-risk status in terms of the types of schools that families apply to in the lottery. If no one says that out loud, perhaps it's because it's so obvious from the data as to go without saying.
Anonymous
10/16/2024 16:29
Subject: Re:October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.
Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.
They don't apply because that's not what they're looking for. Just like UMC kids don't apply to KIPP schools. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either model.
Oooh you said the quiet part loud! At-risk kids just don't like BASIS. Oke doke.
NP. They didn't say that. The DATA SAID THAT.
No, the data said there aren't very many. You made up the reason.
Do you think they filled out the form incorrectly?
Personally, I think there are likely a variety of factors. I would not assert that BASIS isn't what they are looking for, in general and whatever that actually means. And the point is, even if that's true, it's not something BASIS likes to say aloud
Anonymous
10/16/2024 15:48
Subject: Re:October Data Available
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.
Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.
They don't apply because that's not what they're looking for. Just like UMC kids don't apply to KIPP schools. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either model.
Oooh you said the quiet part loud! At-risk kids just don't like BASIS. Oke doke.
NP. They didn't say that. The DATA SAID THAT.
No, the data said there aren't very many. You made up the reason.
Do you think they filled out the form incorrectly?