DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative: Needs ... - Urban Institute

DC Promise Neighborhoods Initiative: Needs Assessment and Segmentation AnalysisFigure 2: DCPS and Public Charter Total Enrollments, 2001–2010Source: OSSE audited reports (October reported enrollments).Kenilworth and Neval Thomas Elementaries’ enrollment declines are certainly due to the competitionfrom public charters, but DCPS’s open enrollment policy also contributes to the problem. Districtstudents can submit to attend a traditional DCPS school outside of their school boundary in aschoolwide lottery. In SY2008–09 (the latest student-level data available), only 30 percent of all theDistrict’s public school students attended their in-boundary traditional school, 37 percent went to outof-boundarytraditional public schools, and the remaining 37 percent went to a public charter school.In SY2008–09, there were 685 public school preschool through 5 th grade students (either DPCS or publiccharter) living in the DCPNI footprint. Of those 685 students, 52 percent attended either Neval ThomasES (187 students) or Kenilworth (173 students). The remaining 48 percent of all elementary students(325 students) in the DCPNI boundary were dispersed across 87 other DCPS or public charter elementaryschools. (See Appendix 1 for a listing of the schools.)While options for school choice are extensive in the District, some DCPS schools are better able toattract or “capture” their students living in their school boundary than others. For instance, the capturerates for DCPS schools in Ward 3 were the highest in the city in SY2006–07: more than 80 percent ofpublic school elementary students living in Ward 3 attended their in-boundary DCPS school (Figure 3).Ward 3 also had the lowest share of students who withdrew from a school before reaching its highestterminal grade. Between SY2006–07 and SY2007–08, 14 percent of all public school students in the city(both DCPS and public charters) switched schools to enroll in another public school before reaching thehighest grade. Ward 5 had the highest share of “early exiter” students at 18 percent followed closely byWards 7 and 8 (17 percent each). Ward 3 had the lowest early exit rate of only 5 percent. 17While these data are now outdated, the point remains the same: children and families in the mostaffluent sections of the city choose their neighborhood public school over other public school options.This is a goal that Kenilworth and Neval Thomas should work towards as well.17 Filardo et al. 2008. Quality School and Healthy Neighborhoods: A Research Report. Washington DC: 21 st CenturySchool Fund, Brookings Institution, Urban Institute.84