DC Begins School Boundary Study

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are naive to believe that there won’t be majorly disruptive proposals on the table. “Equity” is a prime consideration, and so I think we can expect things like city-wide lotteries and major changes to feeder patterns.

I was very involved in the last boundary review and there were proposals such as citywide lotteries. However, they were soundly rejected by the population at large, much to the surprise of those leading the process. I would not be surprised if similar proposals come up again, but I fully expect that they will be similarly rejected. I agree with those who think nothing beyond minor tweaks are likely to come out of this process.

that was 2014, before equity became gospel.

You just posted a quote by Abigail Smith that shows equity was alive and well in 2014. What happened then was that "equity" ran into a brick wall of public opinion favoring neighborhood schools. I have no reason to believe anything has changed in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any guidance on what can actually happen after boundaries are re-drawn? We bought our house on the Hill partly because we really like the local elementary but we are on the edge of the boundary. The other options we could be redrawn to are not something we would be interested in past ECE. We are awaiting PK3 results right now but were not sure we would enroll this year as we get a sibling preference at a hard to get into daycare for our second. Since we are guaranteed our great local for K, we were considering not enrolling (if we even get in) and waiting to try again for PK4 or even wait until K. Now I am a bit panicked because if we don't enroll for PK3 we could get rezoned. Or could it be even worse and even if we start in PK3 could we get kicked out? Would love to know if there is anything practical or if we are just going to have to wait and find out.

New boundaries could go into effect as soon as SY25-26. That would be your kid's K year. Based on what you have said, seems like some risk. Grandfathering in prior changes has applied only to kids enrolled at the time changes go into effect. This means if you are there you stay there (at least through termination of the school, what happens after is up in the air). FWIW, in yea's past they have also applied a grandfathering for a year or for siblings, meaning your younger might get pulled in by the older. That too is subject to change.

You are in a tough spot. If you didn't have the younger kid and daycare issue I'd tell you to suck it up and enroll the kid on the PK3 at the ES to guarantee the spot. But anyone who has had to solve for daycare knows it is not an easy task and that having a good, cost effective daycare that works for your commute is really important.

Best of luck.

[Anonymous]

This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

There are plenty of UMC families IB for Wells/Coolidge who could probably contribute to the improvement of the school if they actually chose to send their kids there. They don’t though. Why would additional UMC families from Lafayette and Shepherd be different?

You...need....a....critical....mass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

And so what? It’s not my responsibility to sacrifice what’s best for my kids — which I already have — for some vague lofty goals that were copy/pasted from Twitter.

#paperbagtest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

There are plenty of UMC families IB for Wells/Coolidge who could probably contribute to the improvement of the school if they actually chose to send their kids there. They don’t though. Why would additional UMC families from Lafayette and Shepherd be different?

You...need....a....critical....mass.

Tracking students gets a bad rap, but it does allow for the acquisition of a critical mass. I mean look at Hardy Middle; getting that mass took some time, but now it pretty much is Deal MS south and getting whiter and richer every year. Once Hyde goes mostly IB (which seems happening fast), the entire pyramid goes mostly IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.[/quote

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leaving Lafayette in its current feeder pattern and just moving Shepherd makes sense in that it would give Deal and Wells equal number of feeder schools, and not require Lafayette kids to cross the park. But I think it's politically infeasible to remove only Bancroft and Shepherd from the Deal/JR feeder patterns because those schools have the highest populations of Black and Hispanic students.

Two things that would make the boundary reassignments more palatable would be a commitment to working with DDOT and WMATA on the buses required to get kids where they need to go, and a promise to offer honors English and math...the 6th grade classes would be for kids who score 4s and 5s on the 5th grade PARCC, and 7th and 8th would be based on the previous year's performance and teacher recommendations.

Kids have been crossing west across the park to attend Deal/JR for decades. Why can't Lafayette kids cross it east (apart from the unsaid reasons)?

Because the homes inbound for Shepherd and inbound for Bancroft are closer to Wells than the homes inbound for Lafayette. Remember: bussing emphatically did not work in the 1970s. It's not going to work now (with free WMATA busses) no matter what the In This House We Believe yard signs say. They'll move to MoCo, to safe Deal homes, or reconsider 2nd-tier private and parochial schools that don't appeal to them today or five years ago. See, e.g., Bullis and SJC and WES.

Bancroft is closer to Wells?

No but it's closer to MacFarland, which is where the proposal earlier in this thread would send them (Deal 3.3 miles, MacFarland 1.3 miles). And Shepherd is closer to Wells than Deal: 2 miles vs 4.1 miles.

Now do Bancroft and CHEC. The Bancroft boundary is literally across 16th Street. Many of the Latino kids already matriculate to CHEC and McFarland from Bancroft already because it is so much closer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.

Bingo! PPP to whom you replied used all the best buzzwords. They didn't actually address or define the terms or goals subsumed in "equity" or "advocating for better educational options". Basic problem solving tells us we need to define goals and desired end states before we can craft solutions. "Better schools" and "better educational outcomes" does not define anything. There are trade-offs when we have finite resources. What is good for some kids may not be good for others. I don't mind sincere discussions about competing goals and engaging in honest debate with people who have divergent opinions. What I cannot and will not do is waste my time with people who paste bumper sticker/fb slogans or use equity as a cudgel to subtly call anyone they don't like a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

There are plenty of UMC families IB for Wells/Coolidge who could probably contribute to the improvement of the school if they actually chose to send their kids there. They don’t though. Why would additional UMC families from Lafayette and Shepherd be different?

You...need....a....critical....mass.

Tracking students gets a bad rap, but it does allow for the acquisition of a critical mass. I mean look at Hardy Middle; getting that mass took some time, but now it pretty much is Deal MS south and getting whiter and richer every year. Once Hyde goes mostly IB (which seems happening fast), the entire pyramid goes mostly IB.

If you let other, silly people take ownership of the concept it does. Allowing advanced kids to take actual advanced classes is no a bad thing. Requiring kids to actually illustrate mastery to enroll in an advanced class is not a bad thing. Stop letting your liberal guilt get in the way of sound reasoning and logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.

Equity was behind the push to close the achievement gap by bringing down the top students and letting the bottom continue to languish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

What is large percentage to you. It is 68% inbound so far? Also curious why you assume that oob students are necessarily worse than in bound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wants a Montessori middle school.

- current Montessori parent

I think the folks in 6-8 at CHML want it. And the folks who apply to Truth. And some other charter families. And the people IB for Brookland MS who want any sort of specialized program.

But if you're right, and you may well be, then just end CHML at 6th (5th would be better but I understand the model uses 3-grad groupings) and create a few more PK3-K classrooms, which is where the demand really is. When it's done, kids just have rights to their IB middle school. DCPS could test the Montessori program at BMS for a few years and end it if it doesn't get sufficient enrollment.

We are at a DCPS that is IB for Brookland MS. The recent Lee Montessori thread on their tensions over academic performance in upper elementary vs fidelity to the Montessori model says a lot. I may be going out on a limb, but I suspect some of the popularity of the Montessori programs is driven by demographics versus demand for a particular style of learning.

Brookland MS has to compete with Inspired Teaching and Latin Cooper for families with kids who are not struggling with grade level work. I think creating an option that allows families to continue with a language immersion specialty would be more impactful than turning another school into a Montessori/social justice mash up with weak academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

There are plenty of UMC families IB for Wells/Coolidge who could probably contribute to the improvement of the school if they actually chose to send their kids there. They don’t though. Why would additional UMC families from Lafayette and Shepherd be different?

You...need....a....critical....mass.

Tracking students gets a bad rap, but it does allow for the acquisition of a critical mass. I mean look at Hardy Middle; getting that mass took some time, but now it pretty much is Deal MS south and getting whiter and richer every year. Once Hyde goes mostly IB (which seems happening fast), the entire pyramid goes mostly IB.

It's a toxic history more than a bad rap. In the years after Brown v. Board, white Washington didn't just quietly accept integration. Rather, they fought it every step of the way with procedural ploys. One of them was gerrymandering attendance boundaries to separate students by race, and another was setting up tracking systems where all the white kids were in one track and all the Black kids were in another. It took roughly twenty years of lawsuits after Brown to fully dismantle official segregation. (I'm not saying the schools aren't segregated today, just that it's not done as a matter of policy.)

A lot of DCPS policy about things like boundaries and tracking came out of the settlement of those lawsuits.