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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 MacFarland feeders are too week. Neither the feeders or MacFarland attract UMC families. I don’t think that adding Bancroft will make a difference.

[Anonymous]

I think there are plenty of upper middle class families who will send their kids to MacFarland if that is established as the pattern for Bancroft. I think it's true that some will avoid it, but there are already some upper middle class kids at MacFarland now, and plenty of other parents will simply do what's in front of them knowing that the system has set this up for them. Requiring that feeder pattern rather than making it optional will create a significant cohort of MacFarland families from what is becoming an extremely mixed neighborhood.

The catchment of MacFarland certainly includes large and small apartment buildings of low-income Spanish-only families. However, it contains a very large number of single family homes that cost $850K plus. I believe that while few families want to send their kid to be the "only white kid" or "only Asian" or only anything, norming MacFarland as the neighborhood middle school with the only way out onerous will make those who don't want it move, and be replaced, or decide whether they'll take risky steps like lotterying every year. And for many, the cohort that the path-of-least-resistance will create will be enough to send their kid too.

It's not magic, it's public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there are plenty of upper middle class families who will send their kids to MacFarland if that is established as the pattern for Bancroft. I think it's true that some will avoid it, but there are already some upper middle class kids at MacFarland now, and plenty of other parents will simply do what's in front of them knowing that the system has set this up for them. Requiring that feeder pattern rather than making it optional will create a significant cohort of MacFarland families from what is becoming an extremely mixed neighborhood.

The catchment of MacFarland certainly includes large and small apartment buildings of low-income Spanish-only families. However, it contains a very large number of single family homes that cost $850K plus. I believe that while few families want to send their kid to be the "only white kid" or "only Asian" or only anything, norming MacFarland as the neighborhood middle school with the only way out onerous will make those who don't want it move, and be replaced, or decide whether they'll take risky steps like lotterying every year. And for many, the cohort that the path-of-least-resistance will create will be enough to send their kid too.

It's not magic, it's public policy.

Yes, and this is exactly the point with feeding Shepherd and Lafayette into Ward 4. It will improve the cohorts. And Shepherd has more white students than Bancroft. Public policy should favor economically and racially diverse schools. As the Shepherd boosters point out - their school does not reflect the economic diversity of the city, but they don't want to mix with Brightwood or Whittier are Takoma -because they are lighter and brighter (in their own humble opinions).

[Anonymous]

There is no such thing in DC as "requiring a feeder pattern" because there are just too many other options with the lottery system. We're happily at a "weak" MacFarland feeder and I agree that families won't send their kids to MacFarland. They'll do exactly what MC and UMC families at our feeder do - stay until they can lottery out for a Deal/Hardy feeder or charter, or plan to move for middle school (many families planned to move after elementary all along because they're outgrowing the 2,000sq rowhouse with a postage stamp yard that they bought before having their 2-3 kids). There are PLENTY of MC and UMC families already in Ward 4, they're just not choosing MacFarland. And 1-2 more neighborhoods will not change the needle on that. Folks living in Deal/Hardy zones really just don't get how different school decision making is outside of their neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are plenty of upper middle class families who will send their kids to MacFarland if that is established as the pattern for Bancroft. I think it's true that some will avoid it, but there are already some upper middle class kids at MacFarland now, and plenty of other parents will simply do what's in front of them knowing that the system has set this up for them. Requiring that feeder pattern rather than making it optional will create a significant cohort of MacFarland families from what is becoming an extremely mixed neighborhood.

The catchment of MacFarland certainly includes large and small apartment buildings of low-income Spanish-only families. However, it contains a very large number of single family homes that cost $850K plus. I believe that while few families want to send their kid to be the "only white kid" or "only Asian" or only anything, norming MacFarland as the neighborhood middle school with the only way out onerous will make those who don't want it move, and be replaced, or decide whether they'll take risky steps like lotterying every year. And for many, the cohort that the path-of-least-resistance will create will be enough to send their kid too.

It's not magic, it's public policy.

Yes, and this is exactly the point with feeding Shepherd and Lafayette into Ward 4. It will improve the cohorts. And Shepherd has more white students than Bancroft. Public policy should favor economically and racially diverse schools. As the Shepherd boosters point out - their school does not reflect the economic diversity of the city, but they don't want to mix with Brightwood or Whittier are Takoma -because they are lighter and brighter (in their own humble opinions).

I thought the master facilities plan slides showed wells/coolidge at or near capacity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are plenty of upper middle class families who will send their kids to MacFarland if that is established as the pattern for Bancroft. I think it's true that some will avoid it, but there are already some upper middle class kids at MacFarland now, and plenty of other parents will simply do what's in front of them knowing that the system has set this up for them. Requiring that feeder pattern rather than making it optional will create a significant cohort of MacFarland families from what is becoming an extremely mixed neighborhood.

The catchment of MacFarland certainly includes large and small apartment buildings of low-income Spanish-only families. However, it contains a very large number of single family homes that cost $850K plus. I believe that while few families want to send their kid to be the "only white kid" or "only Asian" or only anything, norming MacFarland as the neighborhood middle school with the only way out onerous will make those who don't want it move, and be replaced, or decide whether they'll take risky steps like lotterying every year. And for many, the cohort that the path-of-least-resistance will create will be enough to send their kid too.

It's not magic, it's public policy.

Yes, and this is exactly the point with feeding Shepherd and Lafayette into Ward 4. It will improve the cohorts. And Shepherd has more white students than Bancroft. Public policy should favor economically and racially diverse schools. As the Shepherd boosters point out - their school does not reflect the economic diversity of the city, but they don't want to mix with Brightwood or Whittier are Takoma -because they are lighter and brighter (in their own humble opinions).

I thought the master facilities plan slides showed wells/coolidge at or near capacity?

But but but, it's "not Deal."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are plenty of upper middle class families who will send their kids to MacFarland if that is established as the pattern for Bancroft. I think it's true that some will avoid it, but there are already some upper middle class kids at MacFarland now, and plenty of other parents will simply do what's in front of them knowing that the system has set this up for them. Requiring that feeder pattern rather than making it optional will create a significant cohort of MacFarland families from what is becoming an extremely mixed neighborhood.

The catchment of MacFarland certainly includes large and small apartment buildings of low-income Spanish-only families. However, it contains a very large number of single family homes that cost $850K plus. I believe that while few families want to send their kid to be the "only white kid" or "only Asian" or only anything, norming MacFarland as the neighborhood middle school with the only way out onerous will make those who don't want it move, and be replaced, or decide whether they'll take risky steps like lotterying every year. And for many, the cohort that the path-of-least-resistance will create will be enough to send their kid too.

It's not magic, it's public policy.

Yes, and this is exactly the point with feeding Shepherd and Lafayette into Ward 4. It will improve the cohorts. And Shepherd has more white students than Bancroft. Public policy should favor economically and racially diverse schools. As the Shepherd boosters point out - their school does not reflect the economic diversity of the city, but they don't want to mix with Brightwood or Whittier are Takoma -because they are lighter and brighter (in their own humble opinions).

I thought the master facilities plan slides showed wells/coolidge at or near capacity?

That is correct. You can check the slides from the Spring presentation. Deal was in green representing 80-95% capacity. Wells was in orange representing 95-120% capacity. JR/Coolidge were also in orange, but I don't believe it takes into account the MacArthur shift.

It's not an simple solution to just say shift Shepherd/Lafayette to Wells if Wells can't accommodate the students.

[Anonymous]

There is no such thing in DC as "requiring a feeder pattern" because there are just too many other options with the lottery system. We're happily at a "weak" MacFarland feeder and I agree that families won't send their kids to MacFarland. They'll do exactly what MC and UMC families at our feeder do - stay until they can lottery out for a Deal/Hardy feeder or charter, or plan to move for middle school (many families planned to move after elementary all along because they're outgrowing the 2,000sq rowhouse with a postage stamp yard that they bought before having their 2-3 kids). There are PLENTY of MC and UMC families already in Ward 4, they're just not choosing MacFarland. And 1-2 more neighborhoods will not change the needle on that. Folks living in Deal/Hardy zones really just don't get how different school decision making is outside of their neighborhoods.

Spot on. If SP and MtP are zoned out of Deal, then families will be in same situation as the families on Capitol Hill, where families either go to Latin, Basis, DCI, Walls or privates. Or move. There is NO buy-in for Eastern from UMC families. DCPS could have elected to institute a rigorous curriculum or "academy" program at Eastern like Wilson did 20 years ago to get in-boundary families to consider Wilson but not a chance. Also understand the historic politics of middle class and working class decision-making in DC, where to "go west" was always the desired destination. Wilson academically 35 years ago was not all that great, but it was a lot better than Dunbar, Cardozo or Coolidge. DCPS absolutely does not care about creating socio-economically diverse schools. The attitude conveyed by the Bancroft principal in that article, i.e., educated rich people are just a PITA to deal with, is the attitude of the entirety of the DCPS central office. And it's a class, not a race, thing. DCPS Central office doesn't want to deal with inherited wealth AA Gold Coast families either.

The WOTP elementary schools enjoy something called "autonomous status" which I always took to mean a detente between the DCPS central office and the wealthy families who fund six figure HSA budgets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is no such thing in DC as "requiring a feeder pattern" because there are just too many other options with the lottery system. We're happily at a "weak" MacFarland feeder and I agree that families won't send their kids to MacFarland. They'll do exactly what MC and UMC families at our feeder do - stay until they can lottery out for a Deal/Hardy feeder or charter, or plan to move for middle school (many families planned to move after elementary all along because they're outgrowing the 2,000sq rowhouse with a postage stamp yard that they bought before having their 2-3 kids). There are PLENTY of MC and UMC families already in Ward 4, they're just not choosing MacFarland. And 1-2 more neighborhoods will not change the needle on that. Folks living in Deal/Hardy zones really just don't get how different school decision making is outside of their neighborhoods.

Spot on. If SP and MtP are zoned out of Deal, then families will be in same situation as the families on Capitol Hill, where families either go to Latin, Basis, DCI, Walls or privates. Or move. There is NO buy-in for Eastern from UMC families. DCPS could have elected to institute a rigorous curriculum or "academy" program at Eastern like Wilson did 20 years ago to get in-boundary families to consider Wilson but not a chance. Also understand the historic politics of middle class and working class decision-making in DC, where to "go west" was always the desired destination. Wilson academically 35 years ago was not all that great, but it was a lot better than Dunbar, Cardozo or Coolidge. DCPS absolutely does not care about creating socio-economically diverse schools. The attitude conveyed by the Bancroft principal in that article, i.e., educated rich people are just a PITA to deal with, is the attitude of the entirety of the DCPS central office. And it's a class, not a race, thing. DCPS Central office doesn't want to deal with inherited wealth AA Gold Coast families either.

The WOTP elementary schools enjoy something called "autonomous status" which I always took to mean a detente between the DCPS central office and the wealthy families who fund six figure HSA budgets.

Nailed it!

[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?

If there's one thing poor kids love, it's having themselves ripped away from all their friends in their class in the big transition between schools, because their family has less money.

This whole 'modest proposal' of different feeder patterns based on income is just circle jerking among different political factions of rich people who resent each other, using low income families as props.

[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?

If there's one thing poor kids love, it's having themselves ripped away from all their friends in their class in the big transition between schools, because their family has less money.

This whole 'modest proposal' of different feeder patterns based on income is just circle jerking among different political factions of rich people who resent each other, using low income families as props.

Then send everyone to their neighborhood school; no lottery, no OOB.

[Anonymous]

I disagree that DC does not care about socioeconomically diverse public schools. DC has a lot of schools with rather miniscule numbers of at-risk students and a lot of schools where at-risk students are the majority and not very many schools that fall in-between. This is largely due to school choice (clustering and opt-out effects) and geographic boundaries. There is research that pretty heavily supports schools that fall in-between these extremes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that DC does not care about socioeconomically diverse public schools. DC has a lot of schools with rather miniscule numbers of at-risk students and a lot of schools where at-risk students are the majority and not very many schools that fall in-between. This is largely due to school choice (clustering and opt-out effects) and geographic boundaries. There is research that pretty heavily supports schools that fall in-between these extremes.

Maybe for elementary, but JR is 28% at-risk. I think it's a very good example of one of those in-between schools.

[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?

If there's one thing poor kids love, it's having themselves ripped away from all their friends in their class in the big transition between schools, because their family has less money.

This whole 'modest proposal' of different feeder patterns based on income is just circle jerking among different political factions of rich people who resent each other, using low income families as props.

Then send everyone to their neighborhood school; no lottery, no OOB.

Friend, that horse left the barn decades ago. There's no going back from school choice at this point.