Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB

[Anonymous]

I'm about to be zoned out of Deal for our kid (we're in the weird section EOTP that is West Elem, but has access to Deal) but I also think that I could likely do more good if I am forced to make West - MacFarland - Roosevelt work. My kid will get a good education any place because I have the ability to supplement, but that isn't the case for all kids. And honestly, our neighborhood is changing so quickly (for the better) that maybe by the time our little kids get to middle school age, these schools could be comparable to Deal & Wilson. But I think the reason that the schools on the other side of the park are so successful is that the parents are there to force the issue. I'm willing to do the groundwork - I knew this might be a factor if I wanted to stay in the city and not flee to the burbs - but I also know I can't do it alone, and would need other parents to work with me on this. Would I rather the lines stay how they are so my kid can attend Deal? Of course. But if that's not going to be the reality, then I'm going to have to make it the reality on this side of the park, or move.

Kudos to this poster for stepping up to improve the situation EOTP. I promise you that there are other parents in the Crestwood-16th Street Heights - Petworth - Brightwood cluster who are not willing to give up on their housing investments that easily and will join in the fight to make MacFarland/Roosevelt work. Critical mass is there, it's just in the early stages of organization.

More kudos to the Hearst booster for once again making me envious of your community. It really does sound like a great little school and reading this thread makes it clear why OOB families are clamoring to get in.

The rest of the thread is pretty despicable and a reminder that all which is highly regarded is not highly desirable. It seems people are working through a lot of issues they've been holding on to since their own school days and I'm rather glad that EOTP we're forced to focus on the issues most germane to our kids' education.

I still don't know what is the "worst performing school" referenced in the original post, but lack of response to repeat queries make it safe to assume the OP is either a pot-stirring troll and/or not facing the truly dire situation that many parents in DC have been forced to accept.

In any case, along with Janney social scene thread, the lot of you have successfullly made WOTP schools look supremely unattractive. Maybe that was the goal.

[Anonymous]

3:19, who meant to quote the post below

I'm about to be zoned out of Deal for our kid (we're in the weird section EOTP that is West Elem, but has access to Deal) but I also think that I could likely do more good if I am forced to make West - MacFarland - Roosevelt work. My kid will get a good education any place because I have the ability to supplement, but that isn't the case for all kids. And honestly, our neighborhood is changing so quickly (for the better) that maybe by the time our little kids get to middle school age, these schools could be comparable to Deal & Wilson. But I think the reason that the schools on the other side of the park are so successful is that the parents are there to force the issue. I'm willing to do the groundwork - I knew this might be a factor if I wanted to stay in the city and not flee to the burbs - but I also know I can't do it alone, and would need other parents to work with me on this. Would I rather the lines stay how they are so my kid can attend Deal? Of course. But if that's not going to be the reality, then I'm going to have to make it the reality on this side of the park, or move.

Kudos to this poster for stepping up to improve the situation EOTP. I promise you that there are other parents in the Crestwood-16th Street Heights - Petworth - Brightwood cluster who are not willing to give up on their housing investments that easily and will join in the fight to make MacFarland/Roosevelt work. Critical mass is there, it's just in the early stages of organization.

More kudos to the Hearst booster for once again making me envious of your community. It really does sound like a great little school and reading this thread makes it clear why OOB families are clamoring to get in.

The rest of the thread is pretty despicable and a reminder that all which is highly regarded is not highly desirable. It seems people are working through a lot of issues they've been holding on to since their own school days and I'm rather glad that EOTP we're forced to focus on the issues most germane to our kids' education.

I still don't know what is the "worst performing school" referenced in the original post, but lack of response to repeat queries make it safe to assume the OP is either a pot-stirring troll and/or not facing the truly dire situation that many parents in DC have been forced to accept.

In any case, along with Janney social scene thread, the lot of you have successfullly made WOTP schools look supremely unattractive. Maybe that was the goal.

[Anonymous]

OP -- I don't see any winners in any of these proposals. Is there anyone who benefits from the changes? I don't want to "accept the dire situation" that DC is offering for my child or any child in the city. Losing proximity preference (closest school), and losing a higher performing school (second closest), in order to go to a lower performing school farther from my home just doesn't make sense for me. It is also bad for the city because instead of walking I will be driving with my child because there is no public transportation near the school DCPS wants to send my child to --it is a disaster.

Boundaries should be built with a clear radius around a school that is less than one mile for elementary schools. In neighborhoods where there are several schools make it a 0.5 radius. I have never seen a proposal for boundaries that intentionally removes children from the closest schools to their home. If adjustments need to be made move the children who live farthest from the school not the closest. This is a transportation and planning nightmare that violates all national and international practice. Why would the DME force little children to walk to a school that is farther away from their homes -- how does this support neighborhood schools in the end.

Several schools throughout the city are improving in part because they are able to attract desirable OOB children. Hearst and many others fall into this category. The proposed OOB at-risk set asides may seriously set these schools back because they will have to accommodate extremely vulnerable children at a time when their scores are beginning to improve. Has DCPS thought of the implications of these proposals?

I am a product of public schools and attended schools with high economic, social and racial diversity. I want this for my child.

I am just genuinely angry that there are no winners in these proposals. It is just the status quo or children who lose proximity preferences and potential OOB spots.

"Get used to it -- that is DCPS," or "now we are all worse off" makes no sense to me. The boundary exercise hasn't taken place in over 50 years. If the DME wants to make a recommendation shouldn't it be a good one, not one that starts poorly and offers little or nothing.

If there is overcrowding, which could be debatable with the recent construction and planned renovations, it makes no difference because the most crowded schools have the lowest OOB set asides and will immediately be filled.

With the proposal will the quality of teaching improve (or be incentivized), will there be more and better academic offerings, will teachers receive additional training and skills development, will the academic day be longer or be adjusted, will we have a clear plan for assessing parental engagement and satisfaction with the schools, will DCPS highlight best practices from other regions, will the families that have been involved in this boundary process be asked to engage in city-wide efforts to improve all of our schools.

DC is a relatively small city with extremely talented individuals in all wards. I am tired of feeling like the concerns of families are not being addressed.

It just shouldn't have to be this difficult.

[Anonymous]

We are in Colonial Village and walk 0.7 for our school. Many DC schools are already under enrolled. What would be the solution? Open new schools in every neighborhood like ours for 30 kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not the nationally accepted standard.

The American Planning Association states that no elementary student should have to walk more than 5/8 of a mile in any type of rural or urban setting. The ideal is no more than 1/4 - 1/5 a mile maximum as the earlier poster stated.
(https://www.planning.org/pas/at60/report175.htm)

[/b]I am going to pay more attention to organizations, such a school districts, that have experience serving large numbers of schools. This is a very common standard used in many states in the nation. Can you point to other school systems that have a policy of not having elementary students walk up to a mile?

The EPA is also very clear on this:

"Locate school such that a large portion of the student body lives within 1?2 mile (elementary)"

(http://www.epa.gov/schools/siting/downloads/Exhibit_4_Desirable_Attributes_of_Candidate_Locations.pdf)

Murch and Hearst both meet this standard. But no one is talking about relocating schools here. The schools are built and they aren't moving."[b]

Further Sustainable D.C., A city government planning initiative, would like to see 75 percent of D.C. commutes made via transit, bike or walking. This goal is greatly diminished by intentionally placing children over one mile from their neighborhood schools.

[b]This child has a commute that is both walkable, and meets the standard described above as less than a mile. If we're talking Hearst, accessible by transportation as there is a bus line that runs up Wisconsin Ave. and stops by Sidwell, a block away from the Hearst campus. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/in-the-district-a-transportation-planthat-boosts-transit-and-discourages-driving/2014/06/03/c7721ac8-eb17-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html

Also see the earlier poster below

Anonymous wrote:
Did the DME document that "within a mile standard" anywhere? That isn't a standard that is used in city planning or sustainable living principles for walkability. It is smaller then that, .25-.5 miles. DME should apply the principals that the rest of the urban planning world uses for walkability and not move people that are currently within those principles just b/c their new assignment is also less then a mile.

Yes, the DME has clearly proposed a within a mile standard within the proposal. It is referenced several times, and students whose commutes to their IB schools don't meet this standard are offered proximity preference at closer schools.

[Anonymous]

The actual proposed boundary is the first problem. A section of my boundary is being shifted, however an equivalent sized area one block away is being shifted into the overcrowded school. It is literally swamping the same number of blocks for each other (which means no decrease in the number of students) seemingly without any analysis of which families actually live closest to the school.

The second concern is that basic urban and school planning standards state that a boundary process should start with a simple mile (or half mile) radius around existing schools. This is to make sure that children who live close to the schools are included in the schools that are closest to their homes and are able to walk to schools and support schools as a hub of the neighborhood.

Several current boundaries were drawn in a way that places the boundary for the school at the edge of a neighborhood. A new proposal should ideally correct this. The boundaries were drawn in the 1950s for schools that had been built much earlier (1920s-1930s), and often intentionally included areas in NW for example that were close to Maryland to minimize suburban flight. These were politically driven boundaries not geographically driven ones. Geographically driven boundaries are the norm and have been the planning standard for the last 20 years, particularly with the rise of simple software tools. The bare minimum a proposal by the DME could do is retain a notion of proximity preference if it is not possible to fully correct boundaries. Proximity preference currently exists and has existed DC for decades.

The DME June proposal as it is currently written eliminates proximity preference, by eliminating access to the schools closest to your child's home.

So for you poster 7:31, in the June DME proposal, you could lose access to your school that is 0.7 miles from your home in Colonial Village if there is another school that is 0.99 miles from your home that the DME would like to send you to. You would have no recourse because the proximity preference is no longer a right to attend the school closest to you it is a safeguard that only if you are forced to travel over a mile you would get a preference in an OOB lottery process. A positive right to a school close to home for all elementary school children is standard planning practice and creates sustainable quality neighborhood elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The actual proposed boundary is the first problem. A section of my boundary is being shifted, however an equivalent sized area one block away is being shifted into the overcrowded school. It is literally swamping the same number of blocks for each other (which means no decrease in the number of students) seemingly without any analysis of which families actually live closest to the school.

The second concern is that basic urban and school planning standards state that a boundary process should start with a simple mile (or half mile) radius around existing schools. This is to make sure that children who live close to the schools are included in the schools that are closest to their homes and are able to walk to schools and support schools as a hub of the neighborhood.

Several current boundaries were drawn in a way that places the boundary for the school at the edge of a neighborhood. A new proposal should ideally correct this. The boundaries were drawn in the 1950s for schools that had been built much earlier (1920s-1930s), and often intentionally included areas in NW for example that were close to Maryland to minimize suburban flight. These were politically driven boundaries not geographically driven ones. Geographically driven boundaries are the norm and have been the planning standard for the last 20 years, particularly with the rise of simple software tools. The bare minimum a proposal by the DME could do is retain a notion of proximity preference if it is not possible to fully correct boundaries. Proximity preference currently exists and has existed DC for decades.

The DME June proposal as it is currently written eliminates proximity preference, by eliminating access to the schools closest to your child's home.

So for you poster 7:31, in the June DME proposal, you could lose access to your school that is 0.7 miles from your home in Colonial Village if there is another school that is 0.99 miles from your home that the DME would like to send you to. You would have no recourse because the proximity preference is no longer a right to attend the school closest to you it is a safeguard that only if you are forced to travel over a mile you would get a preference in an OOB lottery process. A positive right to a school close to home for all elementary school children is standard planning practice and creates sustainable quality neighborhood elementary schools.

If you're the OP guess you aren't Murch/Hearst after all because what you describe above doesn't describe the situation there. Then again neither does the "no public transportation" thing.

[Anonymous]

Everyone talks about "proximity preference" for DCPS as being able to attend the closest school to your house. That isn't the definition at all. Proximity preference is defined as: Your child will receive preference in the lottery if he or she lives within a reasonable walking distance of a DCPS school. It is defined as a theoretical square oriented north-south with the school in the center and the sides measuring 3,000 feet for elementary schools and education campuses and 5,000 feet for middle schools. Proximity preference applies only to DCPS schools.

It is for a very limited number of people who love close to a school but are zoned out. None of the Murch refined people would qualify for proximity preference.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, rezoned not refined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please get over yourselves people who are fortunate to have have good pathway through DCPS.

To the rest of the city you're known as www3. Whiney white ward 3.

Odd how people fight to send their kids to a area they seem to really dislike.

[Anonymous]

8:30 you are incorrect. That is exactly what is happening at Murch.

8:51 the proximity preference is something that still has to be defined if this process is going to be completed (which it shouldn't, they should and hopefully will let it die on the vine or a new Mayor or the council will shoot it down) you should not expect the old definition of proximity to apply and any new definition should align with standard urban planning definitions of proximity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8:30 you are incorrect. That is exactly what is happening at Murch.

8:51 the proximity preference is something that still has to be defined if this process is going to be completed (which it shouldn't, they should and hopefully will let it die on the vine or a new Mayor or the council will shoot it down) you should not expect the old definition of proximity to apply and any new definition should align with standard urban planning definitions of proximity

No, the blocks that are being rezoned to Murch are fewer, and contain far fewer houses and fewer school aged students. Because of the way the Soapstone tributary cuts through the neighborhood they are also significantly further from Hearst than the blocks between Connecticut and Wisconsin.

Proximity preference is pretty clearly defined in the proposal. If you live more than 1 mile, and there is another elementary school within one mile you have a preference for applying OOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please get over yourselves people who are fortunate to have have good pathway through DCPS.

To the rest of the city you're known as www3. Whiney white ward 3.

Odd how people fight to send their kids to a area they seem to really dislike.

I agree PP. People love to talk about their hatred of Ward 3, but fight tooth and nail to ensure their kids can go to school there.

I get similarly annoyed by the hand-wringing we sometimes see over how Ward 3 schools will lose diversity if certain neighborhoods are zoned out. But it's most often the people who are being zoned out who worry so much about diversity in Ward 3 schools. Am I really supposed to believe they're so concerned about the social and emotional development of other children? Or (more likely) are they just disingenuously faking concern about diversity to support their own rights to access those Ward 3 schools?

I admit this is a rant. I'm frustrated by this whole process though. Initially, I was most annoyed by those people who selfishly shout that they will never, ever attend any other school besides Deal and Wilson, and threaten to leave DCPS if they lose favored status. But now, while I still think they're being selfish and self-destructive, I at least respect them for their honesty. Now, I'm most frustrated by those who trot out arguments about fairness and equity, when it's obvious that some of them just want access. The hypocrisy of many posters really disappoints me.

(No, I'm not in Ward 3, and my neighborhood has no possible right to access Deal, Wilson, or any Ward 3 school. So don't bother accusing me.)

[Anonymous]

9:31 again. I apologize that my rant does not fit in the context of this thread. I'm just so frustrated by what I see from many posters. Apologies for the distraction from the main topic. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

I was simply point in out that on this thread people have started using proximity preference = closest school. That isn't the case nor has it ever been the case.

While I didn't post about the block swap it is pretty easy to see that while the block # may be the same the are swapping a few sparsely populated blocks for blocks with much higher density of living with an apartment building and town homes. You can't think that is a simple block swap based in actual land mass.

I get that you are upset (though I don't know why). If it is distance we are talking about tenth of a mile. If your kids are at Murch they will continue on. If your kids aren't at Murch yet then you will be in for Hearst which not only will have pre-3, a new facility and is clearly on the right path. Sorry, I just don't get what the big issue is.