Has Bancroft's rapid gentrification ruined its chances to have its current feeder rights preserved?

[Anonymous]

We have been a Bancroft family since the renovated school reopened in 2018. We are a Latino and bilingual household, with me being the Caucasian, non-Spanish fluent parent. We rented in Mount Pleasant and diligently saved for nearly a decade so we could buy a modest home and establish roots in the neighborhood.

While I have known Principal Morales to be warm and professional and have not made any of the "demands" referenced in the article, it was disheartening to read what was published. It is true that Mount Pleasant has changed a lot over the past 10-15 years. I would like to think that Ms. Morales' comments were taken out of context, though this will not help parent-admin relations. As spun, her comments are alienating and offensive.

Regarding the outdoor picnic tables, a group of parents (involving a public health professional, IIRC) pushed to have this as an option when students returned in-person and out of concern for minimizing COVID risks. To my knowledge, no one was forced to eat outside, and the involved parents volunteered their time to assist with outdoor meals as well as monetary resources and labor to ensure all supplies were accessible and safe for all to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really clear when you saw the last version of the boundaries discussion that it wasn't Black, Latino, lower-income Bancroft families demanding remaining in the Wilson-now-JR feeder pattern, it was clearly the pearl-clutching white folks who didn't buy inbounds for Stoddert or Janney who NEEDED to be in the JR boundary. And of course these parents were hyping the "diversity" that Bancroft was providing to JR though of course they were um "not that."

To me, that's the thing to end. If Bancroft feeds west, make it only at-risk families feed west. Everybody else, welcome to your neighborhood schools pattern and the lottery from out-of-bounds.

Yep. It’s exactly the same with Shepherd - all the wealthy white parents talking about the diversity of the school - pathetic and performative.

That’s…not my experience with shepherd. Maintaining the feeder pattern is a pretty universal sentiment.

Possibly, but when you center white parents talking about diversity in the first breath, and in the next breath whining about property values - not a good look. Shepherd needs to be re-routed except for at-risk students (which skew OOB). I think that's actually a brilliant proposal from the Bancroft parent. Shepherd should feed West only for at-risk. Rejigger Lafayette boundaries, and I think we have solved overcrowding at Deal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really clear when you saw the last version of the boundaries discussion that it wasn't Black, Latino, lower-income Bancroft families demanding remaining in the Wilson-now-JR feeder pattern, it was clearly the pearl-clutching white folks who didn't buy inbounds for Stoddert or Janney who NEEDED to be in the JR boundary. And of course these parents were hyping the "diversity" that Bancroft was providing to JR though of course they were um "not that."

To me, that's the thing to end. If Bancroft feeds west, make it only at-risk families feed west. Everybody else, welcome to your neighborhood schools pattern and the lottery from out-of-bounds.

Yep. It’s exactly the same with Shepherd - all the wealthy white parents talking about the diversity of the school - pathetic and performative.

That’s…not my experience with shepherd. Maintaining the feeder pattern is a pretty universal sentiment.

Possibly, but when you center white parents talking about diversity in the first breath, and in the next breath whining about property values - not a good look. Shepherd needs to be re-routed except for at-risk students (which skew OOB). I think that's actually a brilliant proposal from the Bancroft parent. Shepherd should feed West only for at-risk. Rejigger Lafayette boundaries, and I think we have solved overcrowding at Deal!

How is your proposal not “center[ing] white parents”? Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really clear when you saw the last version of the boundaries discussion that it wasn't Black, Latino, lower-income Bancroft families demanding remaining in the Wilson-now-JR feeder pattern, it was clearly the pearl-clutching white folks who didn't buy inbounds for Stoddert or Janney who NEEDED to be in the JR boundary. And of course these parents were hyping the "diversity" that Bancroft was providing to JR though of course they were um "not that."

To me, that's the thing to end. If Bancroft feeds west, make it only at-risk families feed west. Everybody else, welcome to your neighborhood schools pattern and the lottery from out-of-bounds.

Yep. It’s exactly the same with Shepherd - all the wealthy white parents talking about the diversity of the school - pathetic and performative.

That’s…not my experience with shepherd. Maintaining the feeder pattern is a pretty universal sentiment.

Possibly, but when you center white parents talking about diversity in the first breath, and in the next breath whining about property values - not a good look. Shepherd needs to be re-routed except for at-risk students (which skew OOB). I think that's actually a brilliant proposal from the Bancroft parent. Shepherd should feed West only for at-risk. Rejigger Lafayette boundaries, and I think we have solved overcrowding at Deal!

How is your proposal not “center[ing] white parents”? Lol

Reading is fundamental. Creating specific at-risk set-asides for Bancroft and Shepherd students, and routing the rest of the students eastward, arguendo, would not be preferred by most white parents in these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really clear when you saw the last version of the boundaries discussion that it wasn't Black, Latino, lower-income Bancroft families demanding remaining in the Wilson-now-JR feeder pattern, it was clearly the pearl-clutching white folks who didn't buy inbounds for Stoddert or Janney who NEEDED to be in the JR boundary. And of course these parents were hyping the "diversity" that Bancroft was providing to JR though of course they were um "not that."

To me, that's the thing to end. If Bancroft feeds west, make it only at-risk families feed west. Everybody else, welcome to your neighborhood schools pattern and the lottery from out-of-bounds.

Yep. It’s exactly the same with Shepherd - all the wealthy white parents talking about the diversity of the school - pathetic and performative.

That’s…not my experience with shepherd. Maintaining the feeder pattern is a pretty universal sentiment.

Possibly, but when you center white parents talking about diversity in the first breath, and in the next breath whining about property values - not a good look. Shepherd needs to be re-routed except for at-risk students (which skew OOB). I think that's actually a brilliant proposal from the Bancroft parent. Shepherd should feed West only for at-risk. Rejigger Lafayette boundaries, and I think we have solved overcrowding at Deal!

Also applies to Bancroft.

[Anonymous]

You all know that Shepherd is 74% non-white and 7% at-risk, right? 7% at risk is maybe 3 kids per grade? So we're going to pull 3 kids per year into a separate feeder pattern? Based on which year of at-risk status? The entry year into the school? Matriculating grade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all know that Shepherd is 74% non-white and 7% at-risk, right? 7% at risk is maybe 3 kids per grade? So we're going to pull 3 kids per year into a separate feeder pattern? Based on which year of at-risk status? The entry year into the school? Matriculating grade?

Yes.

Entry year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all know that Shepherd is 74% non-white and 7% at-risk, right? 7% at risk is maybe 3 kids per grade? So we're going to pull 3 kids per year into a separate feeder pattern? Based on which year of at-risk status? The entry year into the school? Matriculating grade?

Don’t try and muck this conversation up with actual percentages and numbers. You are ruining the vibes. They only want what’s best for at-risk kids even though it makes little sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all know that Shepherd is 74% non-white and 7% at-risk, right? 7% at risk is maybe 3 kids per grade? So we're going to pull 3 kids per year into a separate feeder pattern? Based on which year of at-risk status? The entry year into the school? Matriculating grade?

Don’t try and muck this conversation up with actual percentages and numbers. You are ruining the vibes. They only want what’s best for at-risk kids even though it makes little sense

Bad stats. Shepherd is 55% AA, and 8% Hispanic. It's 26% white. The neighborhood itself -like Bancroft's is becoming more and more white. Shepherd and Lafayette are Ward 4 schools and should be routed to Ward 4 MS/HS. Lafayette was going to get its own set-aside ECE program but they refused to sully their hands crossing the park. Shepherd has similarly displayed annoyed and entitled behavior. Boundaries and feeder patterns change. Ask Crestwood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all know that Shepherd is 74% non-white and 7% at-risk, right? 7% at risk is maybe 3 kids per grade? So we're going to pull 3 kids per year into a separate feeder pattern? Based on which year of at-risk status? The entry year into the school? Matriculating grade?

Don’t try and muck this conversation up with actual percentages and numbers. You are ruining the vibes. They only want what’s best for at-risk kids even though it makes little sense

Bad stats. Shepherd is 55% AA, and 8% Hispanic. It's 26% white. The neighborhood itself -like Bancroft's is becoming more and more white. Shepherd and Lafayette are Ward 4 schools and should be routed to Ward 4 MS/HS. Lafayette was going to get its own set-aside ECE program but they refused to sully their hands crossing the park. Shepherd has similarly displayed annoyed and entitled behavior. Boundaries and feeder patterns change. Ask Crestwood.

Right, and 100 minus 26 is ... 74 (because it's 11% mixed race). And it's still 7% at-risk, even though *gasp* it's mostly brown kids. https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Shepherd+Elementary+School

This has been talked to death already, but Bancroft and Shepherd are the only two majority minority schools that feed into Deal. Shepherd Park is not gentrifying like Mount Pleasant because Shepherd Park was ALWAYS MC/UMC. MP's gentrification means Bancroft's demographics are changing rapidly, while Shepherd has been, and continues to be, the preferred DCPS for MC and UMC black families, even if it's ALSO getting more buy in from white families. That makes it a political non-starter to cut Shepherd out of Deal/JR. Bancroft on the other hand, is a bilingual school geographically closer to the DCPS bilingual middle and high schools. And agreed about Lafayette - it's in Ward 4 and should feed to Ward 4 middle/high schools. It's also more than twice the size of Shepherd, and would actually make a dent in Deal overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

When people talk about SP gentrifying, they lose all credibility. It clearly tells me you don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a ceiling, though, to how upper-middle class Bancroft will become, and it may have hit it. There are FAR more subsidized apartments and affordable apartments in the Bancroft geography than there are million-dollar plus row houses. The Woodner alone has more families than the rowhouses do.

This.

If Bancroft is fed to MacFarland, MacFarland will be awesome.

How so. Most UMC families from bancroft are not going to send their kids to MacFarland anytime soon, given the abysmal test scores. The feeders are still too week to build MacFarland up anytime over the next 5-7 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all know that Shepherd is 74% non-white and 7% at-risk, right? 7% at risk is maybe 3 kids per grade? So we're going to pull 3 kids per year into a separate feeder pattern? Based on which year of at-risk status? The entry year into the school? Matriculating grade?

Don’t try and muck this conversation up with actual percentages and numbers. You are ruining the vibes. They only want what’s best for at-risk kids even though it makes little sense

Bad stats. Shepherd is 55% AA, and 8% Hispanic. It's 26% white. The neighborhood itself -like Bancroft's is becoming more and more white. Shepherd and Lafayette are Ward 4 schools and should be routed to Ward 4 MS/HS. Lafayette was going to get its own set-aside ECE program but they refused to sully their hands crossing the park. Shepherd has similarly displayed annoyed and entitled behavior. Boundaries and feeder patterns change. Ask Crestwood.

Right, and 100 minus 26 is ... 74 (because it's 11% mixed race). And it's still 7% at-risk, even though *gasp* it's mostly brown kids. https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Shepherd+Elementary+School

This has been talked to death already, but Bancroft and Shepherd are the only two majority minority schools that feed into Deal. Shepherd Park is not gentrifying like Mount Pleasant because Shepherd Park was ALWAYS MC/UMC. MP's gentrification means Bancroft's demographics are changing rapidly, while Shepherd has been, and continues to be, the preferred DCPS for MC and UMC black families, even if it's ALSO getting more buy in from white families. That makes it a political non-starter to cut Shepherd out of Deal/JR. Bancroft on the other hand, is a bilingual school geographically closer to the DCPS bilingual middle and high schools. And agreed about Lafayette - it's in Ward 4 and should feed to Ward 4 middle/high schools. It's also more than twice the size of Shepherd, and would actually make a dent in Deal overcrowding.

Shepherd Park is indeed gentrifying rapidly. It's not really MC and hasn't been MC in a very long time. It was historically an UMC African American (aka "The Gold Coast - Jack and Jill-forward) and Jewish neighborhood, it is still, but the number of white residents has greatly increased. In 1987, for example, it was 75% AA. It is just over 53% today. It mirrors some of the shifts we have seen in boundaries and mirrors other shifts along 16th St. It is untenable and not equitable to screw over the rest of Ward 4 (city's most diverse ward) to benefit UMC families in Shepherd Park and Chevy Chase over and over again. Whittier has a chronic rat problem and Brightwood is super-overcrowded but the city was going to create an ECE program for Lafayette? Shepherd quite literally poaches the best students in Ward 4 who lottery in at later grades to get into Deal/J-R? If the concern is at-risk students having access -give them access - if the concern is people in their 1.5+ million dollar houses whining about diversity and property values - let's call it what it is - privilege-seeking and enshrining behavior at the expense of others in your ward and community. When you buy a house because of a boundary pattern - it's a fool's game because wards and boundaries change. Buying a million dollar home does not entitle you to pick your feeder pattern in perpetuity.

[Anonymous]

Right Shephard Elementary school is majority black but it also has one of the lowest at-risk percentages anywhere in the city.

[Anonymous]

UMC white families are still the minority at Bancroft. If they get zoned out of Deal, they will either go private, go charter or move. And fewer UMC families will move in. But I don't see the logical result is McFarland improves. It will attract the Latino families from the many apartment buildings in Mount Pleasant who used to go to Bell or Deal, and who still make up the bulk of the Bancroft school population.

So Deal will get less diverse and McFarland will stay the same.