Anonymous wrote:Thousands of families do it every day, both in DCPS and in charters. Something like 60,000 kids in DC attend a public school that is not their in-boundary school.

Do you mean 6,000? Only approximately 90,000 DC students total, including both DCPS + Charters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

Yes, that seems like it's really easy to game the system. With poorly planned rules like that, no wonder DCPS is facing these logistical problems.

Practically speaking though, it would probably be a huge pain to get your kid to a school WOTP if you moved EOTP and are a working parent. Tough to sustain in the long run, no?

Thousands of families do it every day, both in DCPS and in charters. Something like 60,000 kids in DC attend a public school that is not their in-boundary school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

Yes, that seems like it's really easy to game the system. With poorly planned rules like that, no wonder DCPS is facing these logistical problems.

Practically speaking though, it would probably be a huge pain to get your kid to a school WOTP if you moved EOTP and are a working parent. Tough to sustain in the long run, no?

Can't be all that much of a pain, given how many out-of-boundary students are attending Wilson HS and Deal MS ...

Wilson HS: 50% IB = 50% OOB = 895 students attending from out-of-boundary
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Woodrow+Wilson+High+School

Deal MS: 63% IB = 37% OOB = 362 students attending from out-of-boundary
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Deal+Middle+School

This seems like the obvious fix to any crowding problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

Yes, that seems like it's really easy to game the system. With poorly planned rules like that, no wonder DCPS is facing these logistical problems.

Practically speaking though, it would probably be a huge pain to get your kid to a school WOTP if you moved EOTP and are a working parent. Tough to sustain in the long run, no?

Once your kids get to 5th grade, and certainly by 6th, you put them on the Metro. Easy commute to Deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

Yes, that seems like it's really easy to game the system. With poorly planned rules like that, no wonder DCPS is facing these logistical problems.

Practically speaking though, it would probably be a huge pain to get your kid to a school WOTP if you moved EOTP and are a working parent. Tough to sustain in the long run, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q: Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

A: Nothing. But this isn't a really change as much as acknowledging what's been happening. In reality no principals (except at Oyster) have ever not let a student who moved from IB to OOB stay at the school, and they have continued on through the feeder pattern.

DCPS says this was done to address children with housing insecurity (parents moving from one relative's place to another mid-year), not the relatively wealthy parents who want to score an even nicer house in a gentrifying neighborhood.

Not true, I know several kids who moved OOB at Murch under prior principals who were not allowed to reenroll. You have no way of knowing how many requests have been denied at other schools over the years.

True, I don't know who was denied. I know quite a few who were approved at more than one school.

I do think it makes sense to make the rules consistent -- and I would imagine the principals are happy to lose this discretion.

OOB students with excessive tardies or absences can still be sent to their IB schools.

Anonymous wrote:Q: Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

A: Nothing. But this isn't a really change as much as acknowledging what's been happening. In reality no principals (except at Oyster) have ever not let a student who moved from IB to OOB stay at the school, and they have continued on through the feeder pattern.

DCPS says this was done to address children with housing insecurity (parents moving from one relative's place to another mid-year), not the relatively wealthy parents who want to score an even nicer house in a gentrifying neighborhood.

Not true, I know several kids who moved OOB at Murch under prior principals who were not allowed to reenroll. You have no way of knowing how many requests have been denied at other schools over the years.

Anonymous wrote:

Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

Yes, that seems like it's really easy to game the system. With poorly planned rules like that, no wonder DCPS is facing these logistical problems.

The thing is, that "handbook" policy is inconsistent with the regulations. So they just tried to change the law by writing it into a handbook.

Q: Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

A: Nothing. But this isn't a really change as much as acknowledging what's been happening. In reality no principals (except at Oyster) have ever not let a student who moved from IB to OOB stay at the school, and they have continued on through the feeder pattern.

DCPS says this was done to address children with housing insecurity (parents moving from one relative's place to another mid-year), not the relatively wealthy parents who want to score an even nicer house in a gentrifying neighborhood.

Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

Yes, that seems like it's really easy to game the system. With poorly planned rules like that, no wonder DCPS is facing these logistical problems.

Many thanks for the clarification 15:24. So I guess the answer given at the meeting - "Several members requested clarification on policy for students who move out-of-boundary mid-year. Students can remain through the end of the school year." - is just an incomplete one. I was thinking that meant they could remain through the end of the school year, but no longer. The doc you linked suggests they can stay through the end of the school year, and far beyond.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about the school access rights of out-of-boundary students.

It appears the rule is that if an in-boundary student moves out-of-boundary during the middle of the school year, then that student can remain at the original school through the end of the current school year. That's what one of the meeting slides seems to say: "Several members requested clarification on policy for students who move out-of-boundary mid-year. Students can remain through the end of the school year." I guess that means that student would lose in-boundary rights at the end of the school year, and would need to go through the lottery for the next school year.

But isn't it really inconsistent that we strip feeder rights from that student who moved out-of-boundary, and in fact eliminate that child's school access entirely at the end of the school year, ... but we protect the access and feeder rights of other out-of-boundary students who entered the school via the lottery? It just seems to me that both groups are out-of-boundary. So if DCPS feels it's important to protect the rights of out-of-boundary students to progress all the way through the ES-MS-HS feeder system, then why doesn't DCPS protect the same right of in-bounds students who move out-of-bounds?

Doesn't make much sense to me. Either both groups should get full feeder rights without limitation, or neither should get full feeder rights without limitation.

It's no longer inconsistent. Anyone can now stay in their feeder pattern if they move OOB after K.

See page 8 of the DCPS handbook https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/d...d%20Lottery%20Handbook5317.pdf

"In-Boundary K-12 Schools

DC law requires students to attend school between the ages of 5 and 18, which corresponds to kindergarten through grade 12.

1 A right-to-attend school can be identified as a student’s in-boundary school or feeder pattern school.

2 If a family moves out of boundary during the school year, the student maintains the right to attend their current school through the terminal grade, and can continue to attend schools in the feeder pattern of
the original school.

3 They also have a right to attend their in-boundary school. Some school attendance boundaries and feeder patterns have shifted since SY14-15, which are outlined in the Student Assignment and School Boundary Implementation Plan.

4 Feeder patterns are subject to change each year."

Then what is to stop families from renting in-bounds for 1 year at a Deal/Wilson feeder school and then moving out and being grandfathered in all the way to Wilson?

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about the school access rights of out-of-boundary students.

It appears the rule is that if an in-boundary student moves out-of-boundary during the middle of the school year, then that student can remain at the original school through the end of the current school year. That's what one of the meeting slides seems to say: "Several members requested clarification on policy for students who move out-of-boundary mid-year. Students can remain through the end of the school year." I guess that means that student would lose in-boundary rights at the end of the school year, and would need to go through the lottery for the next school year.

But isn't it really inconsistent that we strip feeder rights from that student who moved out-of-boundary, and in fact eliminate that child's school access entirely at the end of the school year, ... but we protect the access and feeder rights of other out-of-boundary students who entered the school via the lottery? It just seems to me that both groups are out-of-boundary. So if DCPS feels it's important to protect the rights of out-of-boundary students to progress all the way through the ES-MS-HS feeder system, then why doesn't DCPS protect the same right of in-bounds students who move out-of-bounds?

Doesn't make much sense to me. Either both groups should get full feeder rights without limitation, or neither should get full feeder rights without limitation.

It's no longer inconsistent. Anyone can now stay in their feeder pattern if they move OOB after K.

See page 8 of the DCPS handbook https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/d...d%20Lottery%20Handbook5317.pdf

"In-Boundary K-12 Schools

DC law requires students to attend school between the ages of 5 and 18, which corresponds to kindergarten through grade 12.

1 A right-to-attend school can be identified as a student’s in-boundary school or feeder pattern school.

2 If a family moves out of boundary during the school year, the student maintains the right to attend their current school through the terminal grade, and can continue to attend schools in the feeder pattern of
the original school.

3 They also have a right to attend their in-boundary school. Some school attendance boundaries and feeder patterns have shifted since SY14-15, which are outlined in the Student Assignment and School Boundary Implementation Plan.

4 Feeder patterns are subject to change each year."

I have a question about the school access rights of out-of-boundary students.

It appears the rule is that if an in-boundary student moves out-of-boundary during the middle of the school year, then that student can remain at the original school through the end of the current school year. That's what one of the meeting slides seems to say: "Several members requested clarification on policy for students who move out-of-boundary mid-year. Students can remain through the end of the school year." I guess that means that student would lose in-boundary rights at the end of the school year, and would need to go through the lottery for the next school year.

But isn't it really inconsistent that we strip feeder rights from that student who moved out-of-boundary, and in fact eliminate that child's school access entirely at the end of the school year, ... but we protect the access and feeder rights of other out-of-boundary students who entered the school via the lottery? It just seems to me that both groups are out-of-boundary. So if DCPS feels it's important to protect the rights of out-of-boundary students to progress all the way through the ES-MS-HS feeder system, then why doesn't DCPS protect the same right of in-bounds students who move out-of-bounds?

Doesn't make much sense to me. Either both groups should get full feeder rights without limitation, or neither should get full feeder rights without limitation.

Anonymous wrote:The latest slide deck and notes from the community working group meeting have been posted to DCPS Planning's website.

https://dcpsplanning.wordpress.com/category/wilson-feeder-pattern/

Brian

Many thanks for posting this Brian. I have three questions/comments:

1. I see the next Working Group meeting is tomorrow, July 18, but the location is listed as TBD. Where will the meeting be? Is the meeting open for anyone interested to attend?

2. As someone who thinks that OOB feeder rights need to be considered as part of the package of solutions, I am impressed to see that out of the 450 survey responses so far, over 50% are interested in such steps. (https://dcpsplanning.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/06202017-wfp_community-working-group_meeting-2.pdf) This is notable because, IIRC, adjusting the automatic OOB feeder rights was intentionally excluded from the survey. That suggests to me that over half the respondents took the extra time to write that option in. Anyone who is interested in this issue should continue to highlight that option for DCPS and the CWG.

3. The document discussing the automatic OOB feeder rights (https://dcpsplanning.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/06202017_wfp_cwg_enrollment-committee.pdf) says that people working on that topics are requesting more information about the numbers of IB and OOB students at each school. ("The group requested OOB vs. IB rates by school to better how landscape differs by school.") If you get access to that data, would you mind posting here? I'm a fairly frequent poster about how DCPS should adjust the automatic feeder rights of OOB students to make their enrollment contingent on capacity constraints. In other words, OOB students get feeder rights only if there is enough space for them in the new school. Based on the numbers publicly available, it seems like that change would have a pretty significant impact on overcrowding. But if there is school-by-school data showing that there really are zero new OOB students entering the Wilson feeder system, then this step can be only one part of a group of steps that DCPS needs to take to address overcrowding.

Many thanks again for keeping us up to date.