Anonymous wrote:Hearst PK has barely any OOB as it is, things have changed quickly. I would guess next year is all IB. Just a guess.

Anonymous wrote:Oyster?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a newsletter in my inbox this morning from Ruth Wattenberg. This was one of the items:

Ward3-Wilson Feeder School Education Network meetings

Wed, Feb 23,
6:45 PM
Tenley Library
with Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh.
The focus of the meeting will be to talk about the overcrowding and lack of space in the W3/Wilson Feeder schools and possible solutions.


What do you think? What are the solutions?

Were the ward 4 Wilson feeders invited?

Yes, the Ward 3 - Wilson Feeder Education Network includes all schools in the Wilson feeder pattern.

I didn't get an invite. I blame Todd.

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate that everyone is offering solutions here. A several thoughts:

1. Please do come out to our meeting on February 23rd at 6:45pm (note a little earlier than we usually meet) at the Tenley-Friendship Library. Please RSVP to w3ednet@gmail.com if you are coming.

2. As noted, the focus of the meeting will be to talk about overcrowding in Wilson Feeder schools and possible solutions to help relieve this overcrowding. This is an initial conversation and will hopefully be followed up with a future meeting with DCPS Planning Office staff (at least we are working on that).

3. The Councilmember is not coming to offer us solutions. So please come to this meeting ready to offer your own constructive suggestions and feedback. As I said, I appreciate folks offering thoughts here, but getting in the same room and having a conversation with one another is an important step.

4. W3EdNet (for short) includes all of the schools in the Wilson feeder pattern. So Bancroft (Ward 1), Shepherd and Lafayette (Ward 4), and Hardy and Hyde (Ward 2) all participate in the group (to varying degrees -- we all don't show up for every meeting). We welcome families from all of these school regardless of where they live in the District. Staff and other interest community members are welcome as well.

5. These are not the only meetings coming up!

-- On January 31st at 7pm at the Georgetown library, we will be hearing from State Superintendent for Education Hanseul Kang. Please come ask her questions about such things as PARCC testing.
-- And on February 8 at 7pm at Wilson High School, we are sponsoring a joint meeting with OSSE and the SBOE about new school rating/accountability plan under the federal education law (ESSA). We discussed a preliminary version at a previous W3EdNet meeting with State School Board rep from Ward 3, Ruth Wattenberg. But this is another opportunity, with both organizations present, to provide feedback. The SBOE will have an up or down vote on the final proposal later in March.
-- AND we recently heard from Chancellor Wilson, and he has committed to attending a future meeting. That meeting has yet to be scheduled.

6. You can follow us at @W3EdNet on Twitter and https://www.facebook.com/W3EdNet on Facebook. If you email w3ednet@gmail.com, we can also make sure that you know about future meetings.

Thanks,

Brian Doylestown
Co-Chair W3EdNet

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate that everyone is offering solutions here. A several thoughts:

1. Please do come out to our meeting on February 23rd at 6:45pm (note a little earlier than we usually meet) at the Tenley-Friendship Library. Please RSVP to w3ednet@gmail.com if you are coming.

2. As noted, the focus of the meeting will be to talk about overcrowding in Wilson Feeder schools and possible solutions to help relieve this overcrowding. This is an initial conversation and will hopefully be followed up with a future meeting with DCPS Planning Office staff (at least we are working on that).

3. The Councilmember is not coming to offer us solutions. So please come to this meeting ready to offer your own constructive suggestions and feedback. As I said, I appreciate folks offering thoughts here, but getting in the same room and having a conversation with one another is an important step.

4. W3EdNet (for short) includes all of the schools in the Wilson feeder pattern. So Bancroft (Ward 1), Shepherd and Lafayette (Ward 4), and Hardy and Hyde (Ward 2) all participate in the group (to varying degrees -- we all don't show up for every meeting). We welcome families from all of these school regardless of where they live in the District. Staff and other interest community members are welcome as well.

5. These are not the only meetings coming up!

-- On January 31st at 7pm at the Georgetown library, we will be hearing from State Superintendent for Education Hanseul Kang. Please come ask her questions about such things as PARCC testing.
-- And on February 8 at 7pm at Wilson High School, we are sponsoring a joint meeting with OSSE and the SBOE about new school rating/accountability plan under the federal education law (ESSA). We discussed a preliminary version at a previous W3EdNet meeting with State School Board rep from Ward 3, Ruth Wattenberg. But this is another opportunity, with both organizations present, to provide feedback. The SBOE will have an up or down vote on the final proposal later in March.
-- AND we recently heard from Chancellor Wilson, and he has committed to attending a future meeting. That meeting has yet to be scheduled.

6. You can follow us at @W3EdNet on Twitter and https://www.facebook.com/W3EdNet on Facebook. If you email w3ednet@gmail.com, we can also make sure that you know about future meetings.

Thanks,

Brian Doyle
Co-Chair W3EdNet

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure if this is true? I thought the OOB problem goes something like this example:

1) Number of IB students exceed the number of spots available, let's say for PK4.

2) There is a plan to open a new PK4 class. However, since the exact # of IB students that will enroll isn't known, there is some guesswork here.

3) During initial lottery, PK4 is 90% IB.

4) A few IB families change their minds and decide to keep their kids in daycare another year, or get off the waitlist at a more preferred school.

5) PK4 ends up being 75% IB, with several OOB spots open.

6) Additional IB families decide to join in Kindergarten, which leads to some overcrowding.

What am I missing?

Well, how about when DCPS tells an elementary school to go over-capacity so they can accept 50-70 more OOBs? Then those dozens of extra students not only crowd the elementary, but also Wilson down the road.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure if this is true? I thought the OOB problem goes something like this example:

1) Number of IB students exceed the number of spots available, let's say for PK4.

2) There is a plan to open a new PK4 class. However, since the exact # of IB students that will enroll isn't known, there is some guesswork here.

3) During initial lottery, PK4 is 90% IB.

4) A few IB families change their minds and decide to keep their kids in daycare another year, or get off the waitlist at a more preferred school.

5) PK4 ends up being 75% IB, with several OOB spots open.

6) Additional IB families decide to join in Kindergarten, which leads to some overcrowding.

What am I missing?

Well, how about when DCPS tells an elementary school to go over-capacity so they can accept 50-70 more OOBs? Then those dozens of extra students not only crowd the elementary, but also Wilson down the road.

I'm not sure if this is true? I thought the OOB problem goes something like this example:

1) Number of IB students exceed the number of spots available, let's say for PK4.

2) There is a plan to open a new PK4 class. However, since the exact # of IB students that will enroll isn't known, there is some guesswork here.

3) During initial lottery, PK4 is 90% IB.

4) A few IB families change their minds and decide to keep their kids in daycare another year, or get off the waitlist at a more preferred school.

5) PK4 ends up being 75% IB, with several OOB spots open.

6) Additional IB families decide to join in Kindergarten, which leads to some overcrowding.

What am I missing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about Deal and Wilson, and maybe Janney.

Lafayette and Hearst are not crowded. Murch is no longer crowded. They just did a huge boundary adjustment on Murch (huge chunk shifted to Lafayette and moved the south boundary to only 3 blocks away from the school), and they are rebuilding for 100 spaces over current enrollment. Murch will be fine, even with boundary grandfathering. Besides, any adjustments to Murch will not change Deal or Wilson anyway.

If Eaton is crowded, that is their fault for accepting too many OOB students because the school has (or should have) complete control over that, unlike schools that are crowded due to IB enrollment as of right.

Janney's boundary abuts Lafayette, Murch, Hearst, and Mann. The only boundary change that fixes crowding at Janney and Deal in one move is to shift some of Janney to Mann, which is a small school on a a big lot of land. The ripple effect is that it increases the Hardy boundary, which ends up reducing the number of OOB spots available at Hardy, and so possibly the enrollment at Wilson.

Mann, Stoddert and Key are all over-crowded. Stodder turns away in-boundary kids with siblings for pre-K, I think they're the only school in DCPS that does that. Key has over 400 in a school built for 300. None of those schools have significant number of OOB. None have obvious boundary adjustments.

Key's two fifth grade classes are in trailers. Around 15% OOB. There as a proposal in the boundary discussions a couple/few years ago to move a portion of student living beyond Reservoir Rd to Hyde - and the who neighborhood/school freaked out at that. Either the boundary shift or cutting OOB would reduce the #s but neither likely to happen & DCPS celebrates the increased enrollment as a big victory.

Many on this thread are rehashing some issues from the last boundary kerfuffles without knowing them. Most of the involved schools pushed heavily back against proposed boundary changes (including some made no sense - like sending families who lived a block from Murch to Hearst etc). And there's a big commitment to 10-15% OOB for most WOTP schools as part of a larger equity battle, so good luck with that.

I'm not sure if this is true? I thought the OOB problem goes something like this example:

1) Number of IB students exceed the number of spots available, let's say for PK4.

2) There is a plan to open a new PK4 class. However, since the exact # of IB students that will enroll isn't known, there is some guesswork here.

3) During initial lottery, PK4 is 90% IB.

4) A few IB families change their minds and decide to keep their kids in daycare another year, or get off the waitlist at a more preferred school.

5) PK4 ends up being 75% IB, with several OOB spots open.

6) Additional IB families decide to join in Kindergarten, which leads to some overcrowding.

What am I missing?

You are missing the most obvious and important.

We have a neighborhood-based system.

With plenty of charters for people who don't like their neighborhood option.

No need to steal anyone else's seat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get rid of PK in Ward 3 - and curtail OOB - then I think the rest of the city should reciprocate: No Ward 3 PK3-4 squatting in our schools.

If OOB spots are available (and they should only be made available where there is excess capacity), any child in DC is eligible to lottery for it. Just because a child lives in a ward with overcrowded schools with little to no OOB capacity doesn't mean they can't lottery for available OOB spots elsewhere. And your idea is even more delusional if you want to apply it to city-wide charters. Do you consider those "your" schools as well?

It is certainly true that most people in Ward 3 don't *need* free PK, but neither do the middle and upper middle class gentrifiers and long-term residents EOTP. So there is really no economic argument either to support your resentment-driven ideas, unless you want to introduce means-tested access to PK city-wide.

+1. If PP wants to go to 'their' schools IB, they can, with priority in PK3 and PK4 over OOBs from WOTP and anywhere else. So what's this "squatting" that PP feels harmed by? Bizarre.

(Oops, quoted wrong post. Meant to respond to this.)

There is one person on this board who is obsessed with this 'issue' and keeps calling children from WOTP who attend PK EOTP "squatters".

I've seen it destabilize early ES when the PKers return to their neighborhood school for K. The kids who take their places did not go through PK, are nowhere near as ready to learn as the kids who attended PK3 & 4.

And it's the fault of kids that went to PK that others didn't? Still not following the logic.

Agree. If the OOB kids got a spot to begin with, it is because no on IB wanted it. Would an empty seat (no $$) be more stable?