Anonymous
02/09/2015 15:25
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Parents who send their children to charter school for middle school should lose their IB rights to Wilson. Those IB rights should go preferentially to students that attend Wilson feeder schools - Deal and Hardy.
Why? If they live in the IB district, they should have the right to go, whether they are returning from charters, privates or the moon. DCPS should be doing everything it can to encourage students to attend schools closer to where they live. DCPS especially should be encouraging walking and biking to school. If we want a more green, environmentally sustainable city, that' should be a priority, rather than the helter-skelter commuting (much of it by car) that characterizes DC education today.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 14:57
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Parents who send their children to charter school for middle school should lose their IB rights to Wilson. Those IB rights should go preferentially to students that attend Wilson feeder schools - Deal and Hardy.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 13:40
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[H]ow many students are supposed to be in Wilson? Does anyone know that number?
1600 is the Wilson building capacity. Wilson was at 1696 students in 2013-14. Only 43 students were removed from Wilson as a result of the changes. Lots of data available from the links in the FAQ.
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wilson.pdf
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Impact%20Analysis%20Final%20Boundaries.pdf (page 30)
This is such a good example of how inept DCPS is. They know they need to make further changes to the boundaries and are just kicking the can. How will this be addressed? Does the building not have a fire code limit?
And yet when they tried to make boundary changes at Janney and Murch that would helped the problem, people screamed and yelled until they were reversed (only partially in Murch's case). Politically it is just hard to do. No one wants any changes that would move them. And the other natural solution, reopening Western, is toxic because Ellington is afraid that any move that it might make would make it worse off. Some large group of people will need to be pissed off in the short run.
The Murch changes would have had ZERO impact on Wilson. In no scenario were any kids getting moved out of Wilson; the movement was from Murch to Hearst or Murch to Lafayette--they're all Deal and Wilson feeders.
Not true. It would have reduced the number of OOB at Hearst over time and thus reduced the total number at Deal and Wilson.
This. It was shortsighted not to make those changes now. But DCPS does not seem to like system-wide planning.
I agree. But I don't think the blame lies at the feet of DCPS. Rather the DME, the Advisory Committee, and the previous mayor.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 13:20
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[H]ow many students are supposed to be in Wilson? Does anyone know that number?
1600 is the Wilson building capacity. Wilson was at 1696 students in 2013-14. Only 43 students were removed from Wilson as a result of the changes. Lots of data available from the links in the FAQ.
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wilson.pdf
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Impact%20Analysis%20Final%20Boundaries.pdf (page 30)
This is such a good example of how inept DCPS is. They know they need to make further changes to the boundaries and are just kicking the can. How will this be addressed? Does the building not have a fire code limit?
And yet when they tried to make boundary changes at Janney and Murch that would helped the problem, people screamed and yelled until they were reversed (only partially in Murch's case). Politically it is just hard to do. No one wants any changes that would move them. And the other natural solution, reopening Western, is toxic because Ellington is afraid that any move that it might make would make it worse off. Some large group of people will need to be pissed off in the short run.
The Murch changes would have had ZERO impact on Wilson. In no scenario were any kids getting moved out of Wilson; the movement was from Murch to Hearst or Murch to Lafayette--they're all Deal and Wilson feeders.
Not true. It would have reduced the number of OOB at Hearst over time and thus reduced the total number at Deal and Wilson.
This. It was shortsighted not to make those changes now. But DCPS does not seem to like system-wide planning.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 12:33
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would not be surprised if Hardy is taken out as a feeder then to Wilson then.
Then Hardy's IB population would go from 13% to about zero!
Not if the Hardy kids are slotted for Ellington. Just make room for them there (Ellington's got plenty of room after the renovation!). That, or D.C. would be forced to build a new high school to serve the Hardy neighborhood. Or, as others have said, re-route some of the feeders away from Deal. Something will have to give one way or the other.
Ellington is a selective high school with an application process involving an audition/creation of a portfolio, a family interview, and more. It's designed to find those who would enjoy and be good at spending 4 years in a performing arts school with a 9-hour school day. You can't just move all Hardy 8th graders to Ellington; many might prefer a more traditional high school experience.
Your suggestion is roughly as useful as mine, which is: let's just slice off the parts of DC that feed into Janney and Murch and give them to Mont Co. Then Hardy and Oyster can have Wilson all to themselves. Work for you?
Anonymous
02/09/2015 12:30
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would not be surprised if Hardy is taken out as a feeder then to Wilson then.
Then Hardy's IB population would go from 13% to about zero!
Not if the Hardy kids are slotted for Ellington. Just make room for them there (Ellington's got plenty of room after the renovation!). That, or D.C. would be forced to build a new high school to serve the Hardy neighborhood. Or, as others have said, re-route some of the feeders away from Deal. Something will have to give one way or the other.
Note that the rerouting will have to take them out of Hardy too. I am not suggesting taking Eaton out of Wilson, but shifting it from Deal to Hardy removes pressure on Deal but not on Wilson. My understanding was that as bad as Deal's pressure was, Wilson's is much worse.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 12:24
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would not be surprised if Hardy is taken out as a feeder then to Wilson then.
Then Hardy's IB population would go from 13% to about zero!
Not if the Hardy kids are slotted for Ellington. Just make room for them there (Ellington's got plenty of room after the renovation!). That, or D.C. would be forced to build a new high school to serve the Hardy neighborhood. Or, as others have said, re-route some of the feeders away from Deal. Something will have to give one way or the other.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 12:10
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
oops - sorry for bad formatting on my post - last sentence should be dropped
Anonymous
02/09/2015 12:09
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[H]ow many students are supposed to be in Wilson? Does anyone know that number?
1600 is the Wilson building capacity. Wilson was at 1696 students in 2013-14. Only 43 students were removed from Wilson as a result of the changes. Lots of data available from the links in the FAQ.
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wilson.pdf
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Impact%20Analysis%20Final%20Boundaries.pdf (page 30)
It's not 43. It's 462, at least if I'm reading the table right. I assume, PP, you were looking at "Impact of the New High School Rights on Affected High School Students, 2013-14" in the second PDF? If so, there are four different lines in the table that talk about Wilson:
325 from Wilson to Eastern
174 from Wilson to Cardozo
80 from Coolidge to Wilson
43 from Wilson to Roosevelt
If these numbers are accurate, this basically solves the Wilson overcrowding problem.
I posted the link to the documents, and you're right that I miscounted -- my bad. Much bigger shift than I indicated. Here is another doc that provides additional numbers for Wilson, and shows the the DME's team think they may have "right-sized" Wilson. http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wilson%20HS.pdf These numbers certainly look better than the 43 I initially posted!
As I understand the system, none of these headcount reductions will be immediate, because hundreds (thousands?) of kids already in the feeder pipeline will have grandfather rights to Wilson. It may take several years to bring enrollment closer to building capacity. Also, there may be complications because of the new areas added to the Wilson boundary, because I assume those students can join Wilson and its feeders immediately, even though many of the grandfathered students are also still part of the system.
Also, I'm not sure how the new OOB guarantees work. Do they kick in on top of the existing enrollment, or only if there is leftover capacity?
And finally, IIRC, if you look at the various feeder elementary and middle schools that will lead into Wilson, and the estimates of how many students from each will attend Wilson, it starts to look like Wilson is likely headed for overcrowding even once the grandfathered feeder students age out of the school. My recollection is that the DME's staff acknowledged this problem, but noted that their plan allows for future boundary adjustments if enrollments exceed capacity again. Part of me is pessimistic that such future adjustments will actually occur, but the other part of me says it's 5-10 years in the future before we can see how the boundaries are really working, so no one can predict too accurately.
To be clear, I think the DME's team offered a good plan, and I think it helps the situation at Wilson. I just think more changes will be needed in the future, at least until another strong high school appears as an alternative to Wilson.
Yes, that even seems to account for the bubble classes that are just starting to hit Deal, including the next bump coming from this year's second grade classes. Agree?
Anonymous
02/09/2015 11:30
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[H]ow many students are supposed to be in Wilson? Does anyone know that number?
1600 is the Wilson building capacity. Wilson was at 1696 students in 2013-14. Only 43 students were removed from Wilson as a result of the changes. Lots of data available from the links in the FAQ.
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wilson.pdf
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Impact%20Analysis%20Final%20Boundaries.pdf (page 30)
This is such a good example of how inept DCPS is. They know they need to make further changes to the boundaries and are just kicking the can. How will this be addressed? Does the building not have a fire code limit?
And yet when they tried to make boundary changes at Janney and Murch that would helped the problem, people screamed and yelled until they were reversed (only partially in Murch's case). Politically it is just hard to do. No one wants any changes that would move them. And the other natural solution, reopening Western, is toxic because Ellington is afraid that any move that it might make would make it worse off. Some large group of people will need to be pissed off in the short run.
The Murch changes would have had ZERO impact on Wilson. In no scenario were any kids getting moved out of Wilson; the movement was from Murch to Hearst or Murch to Lafayette--they're all Deal and Wilson feeders.
Not true. It would have reduced the number of OOB at Hearst over time and thus reduced the total number at Deal and Wilson.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 10:56
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Everyone agrees there needs to be changes to fix the situation. But no parent wants her individual child to suffer as a result of any change. It's sort of like a NIMBY problem. Ultimately, you have to crack eggs to make the omelette. But most politicians are too scared to deliver a message that will anger some voters. That's why Gray was in the perfect position to make these changes. I just wish he'd made bigger moves to finish the job, because I doubt Bowser has the willpower to make further changes.
I think Stalin used the term "cracking eggs." Mr Frumin, the representative from Janney (er, Ward 3) on the boundary advisory committee used the term "collateral damage" to describe students who are reassigned from a high performing school to a lower performing one.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 10:54
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Is there a plan for expansion of Eaton? First I have head of that. They don't have any physical space to expand.
Correct. I read somewhere that Eaton already ranks among the lowest ranks in outdoor space per pupil and even indoor space p.p. The only way to expand the school is to take very limited outdoor space. The school is also on the National Register of Historic Places, which would further complicate any expansion. (To be sure, Eaton definitely could use additional multipurpose or gym space, which possibly could be a cut and cover project under part of the playground. But no one would want underground classrooms.) But the real question, is why expand Eaton, when it is currently 60% OOB? If IB enrollment is expected to grow, then the OOB number can be managed down. Finally, one can argue that the IB number may fall, instead of grow, because a number of families in Cleveland Park and McLean Gardens are very unhappy about Eaton being thrown under the bus and dropped from Deal and assigned to Hardy.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 10:52
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
I can't see any scenario where Hardy will be taken out as a feeder. I could see Oyster-Adams being removed, though, once Roosevelt is up and running as a dual-language program.
Anonymous
02/09/2015 10:47
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:I would not be surprised if Hardy is taken out as a feeder then to Wilson then.
Then Hardy's IB population would go from 13% to about zero!
Anonymous
02/09/2015 10:36
Subject: Wilson enrollment numbers increasing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[H]ow many students are supposed to be in Wilson? Does anyone know that number?
1600 is the Wilson building capacity. Wilson was at 1696 students in 2013-14. Only 43 students were removed from Wilson as a result of the changes. Lots of data available from the links in the FAQ.
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wilson.pdf
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Impact%20Analysis%20Final%20Boundaries.pdf (page 30)
It's not 43. It's 462, at least if I'm reading the table right. I assume, PP, you were looking at "Impact of the New High School Rights on Affected High School Students, 2013-14" in the second PDF? If so, there are four different lines in the table that talk about Wilson:
325 from Wilson to Eastern
174 from Wilson to Cardozo
80 from Coolidge to Wilson
43 from Wilson to Roosevelt
If these numbers are accurate, this basically solves the Wilson overcrowding problem.
Yes, that even seems to account for the bubble classes that are just starting to hit Deal, including the next bump coming from this year's second grade classes. Agree?