Move schools out of the Wilson feeder pattern*
Move ES’s to other middle and high school feeder patterns
Significant impact at MS/HS levels

*Approach is explicitly not preferred by DCPS, but is included here because it has been part of the discussion to this point

Anonymous wrote:I had promised to come back and post a link to slides when it was available. In fact, they posted not only slides, but meeting notes as well. Here is the link to the DCPS Planning post on the meeting: https://dcpsplanning.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/wilson-feeder-pattern-education-network-meeting-recap/

Thanks,

Brian
W3EdNet

Remove feeder rights for OOB students*
End feeder rights for OOB students to continue in Wilson HS pattern

*Approach is explicitly not preferred by DCPS, but is included here because it has been part of the discussion to this point

Anonymous wrote:We are a Deal/Wilson zoned family who happily stays at Latin rather than moving to either of those schools. We like small (each grade at Latin is roughly 80 kids) and personal (all school administrators and teachers get to know all the kids). Latin is very honest in that they do not push APs. They offer them because it is expected for schools of a certain caliber to do so, but they dislike the "teaching to the test" mentality that can rapidly permeate AP curricula.

Latin realizes that standardized test scores need to improve and offers free test prep. I would like to see what the SAT score breakout is across demographics---I imagine that higher SES kids at Latin are doing okay on SATs.

Don't mean to hijack this thread with Latin discussion. I agree with the PP above who said that unless DCPS is serious about addressing the intensive social services and discipline needs at the non-application, non-Wilson high schools---there is no amount of "special programming" that is going to attract parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Hello Brian. Thank you for writing here, I hope you are still reading.

The bottom line is that "building up" other schools is just fantastically expensive. To meet the needs of the low-income population, and get behavior under control and academic performance adequate, while also offering programs and amenities to be minimally acceptable to upper income people, costs more than DCPS will ever be willing to spend. If you wanted to triple down on Eastern and its feeders, maybe you could make some progress eventually. But DCPS will never, ever be willing to spend the amount of money it would take. DCPS will continue to hemorrhage enrollment to charters and the suburbs until it faces face that fact. You can add in this or that "program" and try to market it but without money to back it up, people will see right through it. Spend the money, or keep on failing.

I'm not so sure. There are many in the city who want to send their child to Washington Latin for middle or high school, and they don't really offer any special programs and this is the first school year that they've even had a gym. They still don't have a track or much of a field. And they aren't spending that much per pupil.

The "special program" or, should we call it, desirable attributes, of Latin are 1) peers on and above grade level, 2) a reputation for quality and achievement, and 3) absence of serious behavior problems. Without those advantages, a school needs to offer other things to compensate. That is the difference.

But at least the quality and achievement piece is a myth, at least in the upper grades. Per the Wash Post rankings out today - average SAT for 2016 graduating seniors was 943; ACT was 22. Only 19% of seniors passed 1 or more AP exams.

But at any rate, they are an open lottery school. They didn't choose their population, they don't expel or suspend students. And it isn't spending exorbinant amounts per student or on facilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Hello Brian. Thank you for writing here, I hope you are still reading.

The bottom line is that "building up" other schools is just fantastically expensive. To meet the needs of the low-income population, and get behavior under control and academic performance adequate, while also offering programs and amenities to be minimally acceptable to upper income people, costs more than DCPS will ever be willing to spend. If you wanted to triple down on Eastern and its feeders, maybe you could make some progress eventually. But DCPS will never, ever be willing to spend the amount of money it would take. DCPS will continue to hemorrhage enrollment to charters and the suburbs until it faces face that fact. You can add in this or that "program" and try to market it but without money to back it up, people will see right through it. Spend the money, or keep on failing.

I'm not so sure. There are many in the city who want to send their child to Washington Latin for middle or high school, and they don't really offer any special programs and this is the first school year that they've even had a gym. They still don't have a track or much of a field. And they aren't spending that much per pupil.

The "special program" or, should we call it, desirable attributes, of Latin are 1) peers on and above grade level, 2) a reputation for quality and achievement, and 3) absence of serious behavior problems. Without those advantages, a school needs to offer other things to compensate. That is the difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Hello Brian. Thank you for writing here, I hope you are still reading.

The bottom line is that "building up" other schools is just fantastically expensive. To meet the needs of the low-income population, and get behavior under control and academic performance adequate, while also offering programs and amenities to be minimally acceptable to upper income people, costs more than DCPS will ever be willing to spend. If you wanted to triple down on Eastern and its feeders, maybe you could make some progress eventually. But DCPS will never, ever be willing to spend the amount of money it would take. DCPS will continue to hemorrhage enrollment to charters and the suburbs until it faces face that fact. You can add in this or that "program" and try to market it but without money to back it up, people will see right through it. Spend the money, or keep on failing.

I'm not so sure. There are many in the city who want to send their child to Washington Latin for middle or high school, and they don't really offer any special programs and this is the first school year that they've even had a gym. They still don't have a track or much of a field. And they aren't spending that much per pupil.

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Hello Brian. Thank you for writing here, I hope you are still reading.

The bottom line is that "building up" other schools is just fantastically expensive. To meet the needs of the low-income population, and get behavior under control and academic performance adequate, while also offering programs and amenities to be minimally acceptable to upper income people, costs more than DCPS will ever be willing to spend. If you wanted to triple down on Eastern and its feeders, maybe you could make some progress eventually. But DCPS will never, ever be willing to spend the amount of money it would take. DCPS will continue to hemorrhage enrollment to charters and the suburbs until it faces face that fact. You can add in this or that "program" and try to market it but without money to back it up, people will see right through it. Spend the money, or keep on failing.

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)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:52 again, adding to my point #3. I don't have a sense of where the OOB students at Deal and its feeders are coming from. As I think about it, I could see a disproportionate number of them being families that live in Ward 4 and know the tricks of which elementary schools to use as OOB access points for Deal. If that's the case, then perhaps Bowser will want to protect the OOB community because it's mostly made up of her core supporters.

WTH are you talking about? The lottery and feeder process is published. Under the rules they have as much a right to those schools as people like you who think you have some god given right. Theirs was no more a trick than you moving into a neighborhood that is currently zoned IB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is TJ a "racially segregated school"? On a racial basis, it's extremely diverse.

Some minorities - especially black and latino students - are underrepresented at TJ and in the AAP program for younger students.

Montgomery County's HGCs and magnets have same issue.

TJ demographics
Asian =1140 (63%)
white = 457 (25%)
Hispanic = 40 (2%)
black = 27 (1.5%)

http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO:0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:300,0

I think those ratios might be challenging for DCPS to stomach.