Ward 3 - Wilson feeders meeting last night: did anyone attend?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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?

Well, if they want to waste their time...

[Anonymous]

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?

Well, if they want to waste their time...

Keep whistling past he graveyard. Shrinking boundaries to remove Shepherd and Bancroft is the logical choice. It's just a matter of time.

[Anonymous]

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?

Well, if they want to waste their time...

Keep whistling past he graveyard. Shrinking boundaries to remove Shepherd and Bancroft is the logical choice. It's just a matter of time.

Logical for you is one thing, but you don't control the boundary or the review process.
Logical for the mayor is another thing and more tied to political expediency than your logic.

[Anonymous]

Anyone attend the actual meeting & have any info to share? would be interested to hear the latest thoughts from the new chancellor and mayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone attend the actual meeting & have any info to share? would be interested to hear the latest thoughts from the new chancellor and mayor.

OP here. Anyone?

[Anonymous]

The Mayor will find a way to funnel Francis Stevens (despite Hardy) into Roosevelt before scraping Shepherd away from Wilson.

Yet she'll still want us to flush $150 million down Coolidge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Mayor will find a way to funnel Francis Stevens (despite Hardy) into Roosevelt before scraping Shepherd away from Wilson.

Yet she'll still want us to flush $150 million down Coolidge.

what do you mean - despite Hardy?

[Anonymous]

Maybe if they got away with old West feeder options to Deal it would be a start.

If you remove capacity from Deal and Hardy you have a chance at Wilson.

The new if you move OOB clarification rule is going to create crazy capacity problems as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Mayor will find a way to funnel Francis Stevens (despite Hardy) into Roosevelt before scraping Shepherd away from Wilson.

Yet she'll still want us to flush $150 million down Coolidge.

PP clearly has no idea what Francis Stevens is. (It's a PK-8 EC that feeds to Cardozo for HS)

[Anonymous]

There are several obvious ways to fix the overcrowding problem. Almost all involve telling some neighborhoods or groups they won't get to attend in the future. That will surely cause complaining from those groups. The key question is whether families suffering from the overcapacity will complain louder than the families who want to preserve access despite causing the overcrowding. If Deal families want to fix the problem, they need to speak up rather than just suffering quietly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are several obvious ways to fix the overcrowding problem. Almost all involve telling some neighborhoods or groups they won't get to attend in the future. That will surely cause complaining from those groups. The key question is whether families suffering from the overcapacity will complain louder than the families who want to preserve access despite causing the overcrowding. If Deal families want to fix the problem, they need to speak up rather than just suffering quietly.

Yes. Whose suffering is going to be more compelling to DCPS - those stuck in low-performing or failing schools or those who only have 3 possible baseball teams to try out for in MS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are several obvious ways to fix the overcrowding problem. Almost all involve telling some neighborhoods or groups they won't get to attend in the future. That will surely cause complaining from those groups. The key question is whether families suffering from the overcapacity will complain louder than the families who want to preserve access despite causing the overcrowding. If Deal families want to fix the problem, they need to speak up rather than just suffering quietly.

+1 We all went through a boundary change and everyone survived. It's a necessity and there are no guarantees that you will get to keep your feeder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are several obvious ways to fix the overcrowding problem. Almost all involve telling some neighborhoods or groups they won't get to attend in the future. That will surely cause complaining from those groups. The key question is whether families suffering from the overcapacity will complain louder than the families who want to preserve access despite causing the overcrowding. If Deal families want to fix the problem, they need to speak up rather than just suffering quietly.

Yes. Whose suffering is going to be more compelling to DCPS - those stuck in low-performing or failing schools or those who only have 3 possible baseball teams to try out for in MS?

Which of the Deal neighborhoods do you consider "low-performing" or "failing"? Are you saying Shepherd Elementary is low performing?

Or are you referring to the OOB students who find some pathway into Deal? If you want to protect the access of those OOB students, then where do you think the cuts should come from? Maybe trim the boundaries of Deal further near the edges? Which edges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are several obvious ways to fix the overcrowding problem. Almost all involve telling some neighborhoods or groups they won't get to attend in the future. That will surely cause complaining from those groups. The key question is whether families suffering from the overcapacity will complain louder than the families who want to preserve access despite causing the overcrowding. If Deal families want to fix the problem, they need to speak up rather than just suffering quietly.

Yes. Whose suffering is going to be more compelling to DCPS - those stuck in low-performing or failing schools or those who only have 3 possible baseball teams to try out for in MS?

Which of the Deal neighborhoods do you consider "low-performing" or "failing"? Are you saying Shepherd Elementary is low performing?

Or are you referring to the OOB students who find some pathway into Deal? If you want to protect the access of those OOB students, then where do you think the cuts should come from? Maybe trim the boundaries of Deal further near the edges? Which edges?

You're assuming there have to be cuts. If they take no action, it just gets more and more uncomfortable for those who have the best schools. Do you see why that's easier politically than the alternatives?