Mayor Bowser to Make Education Policy and Personnel Announcement - Boundary Decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does not impact Eaton as Hardy is already an opened middle school. It only impacts kids that were IB for Deal and were going to be grandfathered for a few years after Macfarland opened. Now they stay until 2022 regardless of when Macfarland opens.

Not to nitpick, okay, to nitpick, the previous plan didn't contain any grandfathering once MacFarland opened. That was part of our complaints because we didn't know when MacFarland would open and it would become our assigned school on day 1. It made planning impossible.

My bad, you're right. I just had it in my head that would be a tweak that was going to happen. Only seems like the fair thing to do.

No, the fair thing was to tell them that unless and until McFarland opens, they can continue to attend Deal. Assure them that there will be at least one full school year's warning before the opening of McFarland.

That's fair. This is just the first step towards granting the neighborhood rights to Deal and Wilson in perpetuity. The rest of the city EOTP should be pissed off right now.

Yes absolutely. When she will seek re-election she will buy votes by promising further extensions to granfathering. Forget about rewamping MacFarland and about Deal overcrowding. Deal feeder map is just ridicolous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shepherd has a fine future. It's the present that's the problem...

how so?

Ignore this PP. Shepherd is a great IB school with a solid reputation. This is the same poster that refuses to let Shepherd be added to the EHJKLMMORSS term. Doesn't matter what this poster says. Many of us at another one of these schools wouldn't go to some JKLMs even if we had a spot.

[Anonymous]

How will Deal have 2000?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shepherd has a fine future. It's the present that's the problem...

how so?

Ignore this PP. Shepherd is a great IB school with a solid reputation. This is the same poster that refuses to let Shepherd be added to the EHJKLMMORSS term. Doesn't matter what this poster says. Many of us at another one of these schools wouldn't go to some JKLMs even if we had a spot.

+1

[Anonymous]

So beyond the Post article, anyone have a lead on where we see the tweaks in writing so that we can determine if the Post captured the breadth of the grandfathering accurately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will DCPS deal with Deal at 2000 students and Wilson at 2500?

There is no change that what was going to be the case until macfarland opened. The 20 kids that come from Crestwood/16th ST H (that are already goind to Deal) are not going to cause the population to be 2000. Gosh, I REALLY wish Janney can just have it's own middle school. Heck, I would even pay higher taxes if it meant never having to deal with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shepherd has a fine future. It's the present that's the problem...

how so?

Ignore this PP. Shepherd is a great IB school with a solid reputation. This is the same poster that refuses to let Shepherd be added to the EHJKLMMORSS term. Doesn't matter what this poster says. Many of us at another one of these schools wouldn't go to some JKLMs even if we had a spot.

I agree that Shepherd is good, but LOL at "EHJKLMMORSS". Is that really a thing? Aren't these acronyms getting a little bit cumbersome??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.

Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.

[Anonymous]

They will save the money, build it later ir never.

We all knew what Deal for All meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So beyond the Post article, anyone have a lead on where we see the tweaks in writing so that we can determine if the Post captured the breadth of the grandfathering accurately?

I don't see a press release yet. It should be posted here when it is released:

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Press+Releases+and+Announcements/Press+Releases

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shepherd has a fine future. It's the present that's the problem...

how so?

Ignore this PP. Shepherd is a great IB school with a solid reputation. This is the same poster that refuses to let Shepherd be added to the EHJKLMMORSS term. Doesn't matter what this poster says. Many of us at another one of these schools wouldn't go to some JKLMs even if we had a spot.

I agree that Shepherd is good, but LOL at "EHJKLMMORSS". Is that really a thing? Aren't these acronyms getting a little bit cumbersome??

LOL I think it started expanded once Ross starting beating out some JKLMs in scores. Stoddert, Eaton, Hearst, and Shepherd have always been sought after for those that appreciate diversity in conjunction with good education. Oyster has always easily fit in there too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.

Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.

Hyperbole, really. Some of you seem to ascribe a lot of change-making ability to a small group of families in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights, maybe a few dozen families in total? Crestwood and 16th St Heights have small populations of school-aged kids. They will not make or break MacFarland.

I am constantly hearing about how Petworth is rapidly gentrifying. If that is true, then that will be what drives the future of MacFarland. It's a far larger and far more dense area of the new MacFarland boundary than these other, more western neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will DCPS deal with Deal at 2000 students and Wilson at 2500?

For the moment they fired Wilson principal who had been very vocal and confrontational about the overcrowding (forget about the ridiculous story about him coming out as gay) .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.

Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.

Hyperbole, really. Some of you seem to ascribe a lot of change-making ability to a small group of families in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights, maybe a few dozen families in total? Crestwood and 16th St Heights have small populations of school-aged kids. They will not make or break MacFarland.

I am constantly hearing about how Petworth is rapidly gentrifying. If that is true, then that will be what drives the future of MacFarland. It's a far larger and far more dense area of the new MacFarland boundary than these other, more western neighborhoods.

Agreed. Plus, some of us in 16th St Heights may actually want to send our kids to a middle school a half mile away instead of across the park. Just make it good enough, and I'll be happy to be there with our Petworth neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.

Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.

Hyperbole, really. Some of you seem to ascribe a lot of change-making ability to a small group of families in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights, maybe a few dozen families in total? Crestwood and 16th St Heights have small populations of school-aged kids. They will not make or break MacFarland.

I am constantly hearing about how Petworth is rapidly gentrifying. If that is true, then that will be what drives the future of MacFarland. It's a far larger and far more dense area of the new MacFarland boundary than these other, more western neighborhoods.

+1