Capitol Hill is actually the perfect example to demonstrate why such heavy emphasis on boundaries makes no sense at all. By starting this discussion based on the % of IB children, you completely disregard that in fact a great many children at all of the Capitol Hill schools live in Capitol Hill (subtract those that actually live in MD). The IB numbers at all of our schools we're all picking schools from around here that don't happen to be our IB schools, sometimes simply because the official boundaries are totally screwed up. Brent kids go to Watkins, Watkins kids go to Maury, Miner kids go to Ludlow-Taylor, J.O. Wilson Kids attend Brent, those in turn attend SWS and Logan Montessori, Tyler has kids from from all other Capitol Hill boundaries due to Spanish, likewise J.O. Wilson due to French, so on and so forth. I'd claim that if you drew one big boundary for what you think of "Capitol Hill Schools" and examined how many kids within all of these schools are from within that boundary, I'd guess you'd be at about 75% to 80%. Can someone run the data please to prove me wrong?

Oops, I meant Tyler, not LT.

Anonymous wrote:The Cluster is part of the reason the DCPS feeder system is such a complete mess on Capitol Hill. Students who attend an IB school such as Brent are forced to choose between Eliot-Hine and Jefferson as a last resort, while students who abandon IB schools such as Ludlow-Taylor in order to attend Watkins have had the right to attend Stuart-Hobson.

They don't need to abandon LT. It feeds to Stuart Hobson directly. As does J-O Wilson.

The Cluster is part of the reason the DCPS feeder system is such a complete mess on Capitol Hill. Students who attend an IB school such as Brent are forced to choose between Eliot-Hine and Jefferson as a last resort, while students who abandon IB schools such as Ludlow-Taylor in order to attend Watkins have had the right to attend Stuart-Hobson.

Anonymous wrote:RE: IB % at Watkins, the info from DCPS includes only students IB for Watkins, not Watkins + Peabody. Same at Peabody and SH. Very misleading in regard to how many families are actually IB, with many more "nearly IB," coming from LT, Miner, Tyler, etc.

Good point. Peabody has a smaller boundary than Watkins and both have a different boundary than SH. Because Watkins starts at 1st the Watkins ECE boundary feeds Peabody. It's mostly fungible if kids stay in the Cluster, but in practice there's a lot more mobility. The IB Peabody kids who rise to Watkins can be technically OOB for Watkins.

"Equal quality" in terms of what? If it means equal funding and resources then that actually ends up being the opposite of what some people mistakenly think it to be, for example Anacostia schools have more funds and resources per student than NW, and ALL DCPS schools receive vastly more funds and resources per student than any charter.

Whoops! Better rething that!

Anonymous wrote:I do think some of these schools should close - I would say Watkins is doing something right as I know middle class, high expectations families of 4th graders who are happy there. I think Maury should stay as is because its doing great. Watkins should get really good teaches in the first grade to attract and keep Peabody kids (I've heard of families having terrible 1st grade years, very dependent on the teacher). I think Watkins could absorb Payne. Ludlow and Wilson could combine. Jefferson and Eliot-Hine could combine and have some attractive honors program or something.

Watkins teacher here, Peabody parents move for tons or reasons. Watkins is too big, too old, too loud, and let's face it- too 'diverse '. I see the parents come and they are clutching their purses and hearts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would disagree that it is not well thought out. There are a lot of versions of it in San Francisco, Boston, New York to a limited extent, Montgomery County.

I think the question is what are the alternatives if the open free for all of the OOB process is eliminated? At this point if we left the status quo, we would still have a shortage of high quality schools to send out kids.

I think what many would argue (rightly or wrongly) is that a lot if not most of what makes the good schools good (i.e. high test scores) is who goes there not the school itself (or a modification of this: the families who went/go there built the school and made it good, e.g. teachers, programs, amenities, but it would necessarily remain good without them). Therefore if you fool around with the community that goes to the "good" schools, you have eliminated the good schools altogether and sent the school builders fleeing to the burbs or privates. I'm curious as to how any similar scenarios played out in SF, Boston, NY, or MoCo and whether the "good" schools remained good.

My understanding is that there are relatively few upper middle class families in the Boston and SF systems. By abnd large they head to the burbs. NY is much more complex given the number of boroughs

Anonymous wrote:I would disagree that it is not well thought out. There are a lot of versions of it in San Francisco, Boston, New York to a limited extent, Montgomery County.

I think the question is what are the alternatives if the open free for all of the OOB process is eliminated? At this point if we left the status quo, we would still have a shortage of high quality schools to send out kids.

The point is, with controlled choice, you would no longer have any hope of getting your kid into a "good" school. At least in the current system you can play the lottery every year and you are likely to eventually get in somewhere where there are a critical mass of children who are not living in poverty. Then you get to go through the whole process again for middle school. Controlled choice would eliminate that possibility, which would mean families with young kids should leave the city after K, just as they did in the last decade, instead of trying to stick it out, and house prices in improving, walkable neighborhoods should go down.

From what I see on MoCo threads peopke don't like it and avoid being in the controlled choice areas if they can.

Anonymous wrote:I would disagree that it is not well thought out. There are a lot of versions of it in San Francisco, Boston, New York to a limited extent, Montgomery County.

I think the question is what are the alternatives if the open free for all of the OOB process is eliminated? At this point if we left the status quo, we would still have a shortage of high quality schools to send out kids.

I think what many would argue (rightly or wrongly) is that a lot if not most of what makes the good schools good (i.e. high test scores) is who goes there not the school itself (or a modification of this: the families who went/go there built the school and made it good, e.g. teachers, programs, amenities, but it would necessarily remain good without them). Therefore if you fool around with the community that goes to the "good" schools, you have eliminated the good schools altogether and sent the school builders fleeing to the burbs or privates. I'm curious as to how any similar scenarios played out in SF, Boston, NY, or MoCo and whether the "good" schools remained good.

Controlled Choice requires that the baseline schools within a zone are of equal quality with similar curricular offerings. The school systems you mention above have been functioning and stable for many years.

The schools in DC have been so bad for so long that it should not even be considered here. We are taking baby steps toward functionality here. Even Henderson admits that equalizing course offerings at all schools is only just beginning.

I would disagree that it is not well thought out. There are a lot of versions of it in San Francisco, Boston, New York to a limited extent, Montgomery County.

I think the question is what are the alternatives if the open free for all of the OOB process is eliminated? At this point if we left the status quo, we would still have a shortage of high quality schools to send out kids.

Who knows what would happen with controlled choice. It is obviously a not very well thought out idea that will have a major negative impact on middle class families who want to live in the city and send their kids to a public school and don't want to live in upper NW.

RE: IB % at Watkins, the info from DCPS includes only students IB for Watkins, not Watkins + Peabody. Same at Peabody and SH. Very misleading in regard to how many families are actually IB, with many more "nearly IB," coming from LT, Miner, Tyler, etc.