Make a different MS a true high achieving school with REAL admissions standards.

Thats all it would take.

Anonymous wrote:I should clarify so ask to not leave the impression that DCPS is saying something that it is not. DCPS is NOT putting constrains on the discussion. It fact the opposite. They are saying that everything is on the table, including OOB feeder rights and removing schools from the feeder pattern.

Why did I frame the question that way then? Well for several reasons, but the main one here is that I am trying to tap as many good ideas as possible. Quite frankly, I've heard just about all the permutations of kick school x out, remove OOB feeder rights, and redraw boundaries. I am hoping by asking the question "what else?" We might come up with some other options. In part that is a useful exercise for some of the reasons that folks have already talked about -- given political realities would any of those things happen. But it is also useful because (1) at least so far I think it has led in some of our discussions to come up with ideas that we might not have thought about, and (2) some of these ideas could be carried out in the short run. My hope is that we can actually do something. That requires at least a large swath of folks to think that it is "not too bad". If you think you have an idea that touches on my so-called "third rails" but folks could get behind (*including the people you might be affecting*), have at it. I am just skeptical about the viability of ideas where people are asking other people to give up something but not themselves, and I am skeptical about having a productive conversation when everyone is pointing the finger at someone else.

Yes, a lot of our discussion on Wednesday around solutions was in the "building up other schools" camp. Does DCPS promote schools effectively enough? What programs would entice people? But also, is it really about marketing and programs, or other things? As the person who was clearly at the meeting noted, several folks underscored that families are not likely to be "pushed" to schools that they just don't want their kids to attend.

Thanks,

Brian (I generally will sign all of my posts, btw)

Brian, I'm the one who was asking you all the clarifying questions. I appreciate your comprehensive description of the issues. I'll try to think of other options. Thank you.

ST

Sorry, one more thing.

DCPS does plan to have some sort of survey during this process to collect views outside of the community working group.

Brian

I should clarify so ask to not leave the impression that DCPS is saying something that it is not. DCPS is NOT putting constrains on the discussion. It fact the opposite. They are saying that everything is on the table, including OOB feeder rights and removing schools from the feeder pattern.

Why did I frame the question that way then? Well for several reasons, but the main one here is that I am trying to tap as many good ideas as possible. Quite frankly, I've heard just about all the permutations of kick school x out, remove OOB feeder rights, and redraw boundaries. I am hoping by asking the question "what else?" We might come up with some other options. In part that is a useful exercise for some of the reasons that folks have already talked about -- given political realities would any of those things happen. But it is also useful because (1) at least so far I think it has led in some of our discussions to come up with ideas that we might not have thought about, and (2) some of these ideas could be carried out in the short run. My hope is that we can actually do something. That requires at least a large swath of folks to think that it is "not too bad". If you think you have an idea that touches on my so-called "third rails" but folks could get behind (*including the people you might be affecting*), have at it. I am just skeptical about the viability of ideas where people are asking other people to give up something but not themselves, and I am skeptical about having a productive conversation when everyone is pointing the finger at someone else.

Yes, a lot of our discussion on Wednesday around solutions was in the "building up other schools" camp. Does DCPS promote schools effectively enough? What programs would entice people? But also, is it really about marketing and programs, or other things? As the person who was clearly at the meeting noted, several folks underscored that families are not likely to be "pushed" to schools that they just don't want their kids to attend.

Thanks,

Brian (I generally will sign all of my posts, btw)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brian, a question: When you challenge us to offer solutions that do NOT involve changing boundaries, changing feedrs, or removing any OOB rights, are you really saying broadly that you need solutions that do not involve any efforts to prevent students from attending the overcrowded schools? In other words, are you saying we can only offer carrots to lure students into choosing not to attend Deal-Wilson, and cannot prevent any student from attending if they want to?

I ask because I can think of a few other solutions that excise segments of the Deal-Wilson population (not in the 3 ways you specifically called out but rather relying on other classifications), but I don't want to offer them if your real message is that DCPS wants only ideas that don't prohibit anyone with current rights from attending. If the only way to reduce overcrowding is to offer some better option that lures families away, that's a much harder (and perhaps impossible) standard. But if that's the challenge, then let's be clear that's the only way this will happen.

What say you?

The way it was explained at the meeting is that students can't be pushed, they have to be pulled. So yes, offering better options.

The only other way is expanding the capacity of facilities. That's expensive and will take time to implement. It also tends to be inflexible.

Many thanks for the clarification. And when you say "students can't be pushed," is that limited to actual current students? Or do you mean not just the current students but also future students in similar circumstances? In other words, could there be a change to OOB feeder rights or boundaries which uses grandfathering to avoid any impact at all on current students (doesn't "push" them)? Or is that off the table too because it might impact future students?

Trying to understand clearly the parameters DCPS is putting on this discussion.

Anonymous wrote:Brian, a question: When you challenge us to offer solutions that do NOT involve changing boundaries, changing feedrs, or removing any OOB rights, are you really saying broadly that you need solutions that do not involve any efforts to prevent students from attending the overcrowded schools? In other words, are you saying we can only offer carrots to lure students into choosing not to attend Deal-Wilson, and cannot prevent any student from attending if they want to?

I ask because I can think of a few other solutions that excise segments of the Deal-Wilson population (not in the 3 ways you specifically called out but rather relying on other classifications), but I don't want to offer them if your real message is that DCPS wants only ideas that don't prohibit anyone with current rights from attending. If the only way to reduce overcrowding is to offer some better option that lures families away, that's a much harder (and perhaps impossible) standard. But if that's the challenge, then let's be clear that's the only way this will happen.

What say you?

The way it was explained at the meeting is that students can't be pushed, they have to be pulled. So yes, offering better options.

The only other way is expanding the capacity of facilities. That's expensive and will take time to implement. It also tends to be inflexible.

Brian, a question: When you challenge us to offer solutions that do NOT involve changing boundaries, changing feedrs, or removing any OOB rights, are you really saying broadly that you need solutions that do not involve any efforts to prevent students from attending the overcrowded schools? In other words, are you saying we can only offer carrots to lure students into choosing not to attend Deal-Wilson, and cannot prevent any student from attending if they want to?

I ask because I can think of a few other solutions that excise segments of the Deal-Wilson population (not in the 3 ways you specifically called out but rather relying on other classifications), but I don't want to offer them if your real message is that DCPS wants only ideas that don't prohibit anyone with current rights from attending. If the only way to reduce overcrowding is to offer some better option that lures families away, that's a much harder (and perhaps impossible) standard. But if that's the challenge, then let's be clear that's the only way this will happen.

What say you?

I think we should not be creative and cute with the solutions. Governing requires making hard decisions and DCPS has kicked the can for far too long.

How about increasing the funding and activities at MacFarland / Roosevelt to the point that many parents would choose that over Deal / Wilson?
Significantly smaller class sizes, legitimate honors classes, and a large variety of activities.
Some parents would never make that choice because of location, race, class, etc. But some might choose it.
Bottom line: think of drawing people out rather than forcing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone attend this meeting? I heard from an attendee that there was discussion of removing EOTP schools from the Deal/Wilson feed (i.e., Shepherd and Bancroft). Is this accurate? Were there other strategies for reducing overcrowding on the table, or was removal of feeders the main strategy being considered in the short-term?

DCPS is launching a working group to address Ward 3 population issues. All schools have a community rep and principal rep. As of April 29, Hyde, Lafayette and Shepherd had not named community representatives (parents or staff, etc). The Principal needs to submit the name - so if you are a parent at one of those schools, please bug your Principal to do it.

The first meeting is May 16. Mary Cheh, the School Board and the Ward 3 - Wilson Feeder Education Network (a group of PTA, LSAT, and other community members at schools in the Wilson feeder pattern) are also represented.

OP here. Thank you; this is helpful. However it's also troubling, as I've heard that Shepherd was not notified about this mtg (although I haven't verified that). I'm just a parent, not on the PTA or any other committees, but I will definitely try to nudge school leaders about this.

Short message for now. (Sorry at work, and now off to school chorus concert!)

1. No Chancellor. DCPS Planning Office and Office of Family Engagement. Mary Cheh there too.

2. DCPS presented some numbers on overcapacity and enrollment projections, as did I. On big picture: both agree that schools are overcrowding and will get more so, even if we differ on degree and some details.

3. DCPS also reviewed some of the solutions that W3EdNet folks brainstormed about at our February 23rd meeting (covered in NW Current) and added some of their own. No conclusions. DCPS wants "all options on the table" (so yes OOB rights and feeder patterns were mentioned). As noted (sort of) earlier, we pushed this issue with DCPS and invited them to our May meeting. They agreed to come, and the Chancellor announced a community working group on the issue, with representatives from each of the schools. It does indeed meet on May 16 and will work over the next 5-6 months on the issue. Of course, in the end it is DCPS' call.

4. I will send a link to the slide deck from the meeting when DCPS posts it.

5. I have been working with folks at all three schools mentioned to make sure that they get reps on the community working group (DCPS invites and runs it, but I have an interest in knowing who the family reps are). I am sure that DCPS reached out to the schools, but these things take time. Folks at most of the schools have volunteered and will likely be finalized soon. I also invited (as we always do, but this time with a little more vigour) people from every school to the W3EdNet meeting. We have also reached out to folks outside (but near) the Wilson feeder pattern schools.

6. Happy to have others' interest in this issue. Email me at w3ednet@gmail.com if you want to be in the loop, or participate in our meetings more broadly. (Can also follow us on Twitter or Facebook.)

Thanks,

Brian Doyle
Co-Chair
Ward 3 - Wilson Feeder Education Network

Okay, for those waiting for me to them what DCPS' plan is, you will be disappointed. I will give a longer, but still brief, readout on the meeting.

In short, DCPS showed the audited enrollment figures and the programmatic capacity of each school. I showed similar number for each school and made a few points about how these included portables and have increased over time as spaces that were not used as classrooms have been converted over. But basically, we both agree that schools are overcrowded. Hard to dispute that. We also both showed the projected increase in enrollment using DC own population projections for neighbourhood clusters associated with the Wilson feeder schools from 2015 to 2025. Short answer is we are talking about anywhere from a roughly 30 percent increase in elementary school aged students or about 5,000 kids to a 10 percent increase at high school aged kids which is closer to 750 children. That is all children no matter what sort of school they attend. If you assume estimates of the percentage of kids in DCPS hold constant, then the number drop in anywhere from 2-3000 for elementary to 250-350 for high school (with middle school in between). Folks pointed out some concerns with these figures -- new developments coming, that the estimates assume past trends that imply a rate of leaving the city at upper grades that might not continue, that schools have lost PK4 classrooms which understates overcrowding, that audited enrollment is not high water mark for Wilson which continues to accept students throughout the year, etc.. All good points.

The second portion was a review of possible solutions for the community working group to consider. As I noted before, this list was taken in part from W3EdNet's February 23rd brainstorming session, ideas that others have suggested since then, and some that DCPS contributed. DCPS stressed that at this point everything is on the table. But they noted which ideas might be better suited for the short term and which for the longer term. As others have asked, among DCPS' list of ideas was ending OOB feeder rights, redrawing boundaries, and removing schools from the feeder pattern. But they also included a lot of other ideas as well (the list is long so I will not be exhaustive), including reopening the Old Hardy school, finding other space for another elementary school or an early childhood center, using existing space more intensively such as during the summer or shifted days, expanding partnerships with local universities, renting commercial space, cutting back PK4 further, creating more magnet programs around the city, and so on. Another idea is the subject of another thread and I will say more on it there (http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/640142.page) Of course, we had an extensive discussion of many of these options, came to no firm conclusions, and the community working group being convened by DCPS will debate some of the ideas more intensively. DCPS will hopefully then take some steps next year.

Do I think all of this a sham? Certainly the question has been asked here, or the point has been asserted. The answer, to my mind, is I hope not. We do have an issue, and I hope that through some constructive conversation between staff and families in the schools and DCPS, we can come up with some practical solutions that will make a difference. It is not going be easy, and it could all fall apart. But what is the alternative? Give up? Not talk to DCPS? You can call me naive, but I do believe that DCPS does honestly want to do something and is interested in exploring options. I am grateful that they met with us earlier this week, and that they have set up this group. Things might not turn out in a way that I would like, but it seems like we should at least give this a try. My two cents.

One final thing. I put the following question to a bunch of folks and I will put it to you. If you have a practical idea that you think might be useful, please email me at w3ednet@gmail.com. In particular, I challenge you to think of ideas that do *not* involve removing schools from the feeder pattern, striping OOB students of feeder rights, or redrawing boundaries. In part, I want to put those strictures on you, because I want to force folks to try to think of some creative solutions (i.e. 50 emails saying "kick school x out" don't provide much new information, and at the elementary level don't help much at all).

Thanks,

Brian

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only a matter of time before space constraints results in a push to drop the Hardy cluster from Wilson

That makes some sense, doesn't it? I was looking at school capacity numbers today ...

Deal has a capacity of 1200, so 400 per grade.
Wilson has a capacity of 1600, so 400 per grade.

If all the Deal students move on to Wilson, then Deal should essentially fill up Wilson without any input from Hardy or other OOB students. Of course some portion of the Deal middle school students leave for private schools or places like SWW, but I don't know how many that is. Re-routing Hardy would allow all the Deal students to go to Wilson without overcrowding it, and leave some room for OOB students too.

I still think though that a better first step is to address the OOB students, to see how much that relieves the pressure.

But both are well over that capacity now, and no one is dying.

16-17 enrollment (from OSSE's audited data)

Deal 1476
Hardy 374
Wilson 1749

Do we really have to wait for children to start dying before we can have a discussion about school overcrowding? I assume you're being facetious. The overcrowding has been a problem for years, and it's getting worse and worse. Why can't we try to reduce overcrowding before it becomes truly dire?

Because the politicians want to get re-elected, and making such an enormous change directly affects whether or not that will happen. See: Fenty, Adrian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only a matter of time before space constraints results in a push to drop the Hardy cluster from Wilson

That makes some sense, doesn't it? I was looking at school capacity numbers today ...

Deal has a capacity of 1200, so 400 per grade.
Wilson has a capacity of 1600, so 400 per grade.

If all the Deal students move on to Wilson, then Deal should essentially fill up Wilson without any input from Hardy or other OOB students. Of course some portion of the Deal middle school students leave for private schools or places like SWW, but I don't know how many that is. Re-routing Hardy would allow all the Deal students to go to Wilson without overcrowding it, and leave some room for OOB students too.

I still think though that a better first step is to address the OOB students, to see how much that relieves the pressure.

But both are well over that capacity now, and no one is dying.

16-17 enrollment (from OSSE's audited data)

Deal 1476
Hardy 374
Wilson 1749

Do we really have to wait for children to start dying before we can have a discussion about school overcrowding? I assume you're being facetious. The overcrowding has been a problem for years, and it's getting worse and worse. Why can't we try to reduce overcrowding before it becomes truly dire?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only a matter of time before space constraints results in a push to drop the Hardy cluster from Wilson

That makes some sense, doesn't it? I was looking at school capacity numbers today ...

Deal has a capacity of 1200, so 400 per grade.
Wilson has a capacity of 1600, so 400 per grade.

If all the Deal students move on to Wilson, then Deal should essentially fill up Wilson without any input from Hardy or other OOB students. Of course some portion of the Deal middle school students leave for private schools or places like SWW, but I don't know how many that is. Re-routing Hardy would allow all the Deal students to go to Wilson without overcrowding it, and leave some room for OOB students too.

I still think though that a better first step is to address the OOB students, to see how much that relieves the pressure.

But both are well over that capacity now, and no one is dying.

16-17 enrollment (from OSSE's audited data)

Deal 1476
Hardy 374
Wilson 1749

Anonymous wrote:It's only a matter of time before space constraints results in a push to drop the Hardy cluster from Wilson

That makes some sense, doesn't it? I was looking at school capacity numbers today ...

Deal has a capacity of 1200, so 400 per grade.
Wilson has a capacity of 1600, so 400 per grade.

If all the Deal students move on to Wilson, then Deal should essentially fill up Wilson without any input from Hardy or other OOB students. Of course some portion of the Deal middle school students leave for private schools or places like SWW, but I don't know how many that is. Re-routing Hardy would allow all the Deal students to go to Wilson without overcrowding it, and leave some room for OOB students too.

I still think though that a better first step is to address the OOB students, to see how much that relieves the pressure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking Oyster out of the feeder pattern makes as much, if not more, sense than removing Bancroft and Shepherd.

Let them continue their dual language programs at CHEC or Roosevelt.

This is an excellent idea. Even see if DCI can take them - the city supposedly wants DCPS and charters to partner together.

I thought Oyster did lose Deal (because of Adams)? But kept Wilson?

Yes, they kept Wilson after making a lot of noise -- an earlier plan had it feeding somewhere else.

PP doesn't know much about Oyster Adams. Removing Oyster and Adams Middle school as Wilson feeders will make very, very little difference.

Bancroft and Shepherd elementaries between them have 881 kids (according to http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov). Oyster elementary and Adams middle school together have 681. May kids leave Oyster after elementary, so Adams only has like 160 kids. Two years ago only like 15 kids went from Adams to Wilson, and that's about average. More kids typically go to Walls, Ellington and privates. Lots of kids going to Wilson next year from Adams, but it's a very unusual year and a very unusual Adams class.

In terms of practical steps to ease Wilson overcrowding, this is not a helpful idea. Some people seem to get really excited about it (some people seem to really dislike Oyster, not sure why), but it's not a helpful suggestion.

Okay, but then it should also be low-hanging fruit. So let's do it. After all, at this point every little bit helps.

DCPS already tried it with the last boundary review. They received a LOT of pushback. Highly unlikely they'll try it again anytime soon, because the things that OA parents objected to are still objectionable.