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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alice Deal enrollment over the years (with citations)

2009-10 - 866 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/DCPS-School-Profile-DEAL-Jan-11.pdf)
2010-11 - 867 (http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/Learn-About-Schools/DCPS-Middle-School-Guide-2010-2011.pdf)
2011-12 - 1014 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/deal2012.pdf)
2012-13 - 1165 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/405_2013.pdf)
2013-14 - 1248 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Deal+Middle+School)
2014-15 - 1305 (http://alicedeal.org/faq-the-deal-facts/)

The plan Mayor Bowser just "tweaked" was supposed to stem this flow. I fear she may be pouring water back into the boat.

Great, now why don't you post up the stats for Janney's growth? Want to know which of the Deal feeders is causing the Deal population to increase? Here's a hint, it's WOTP and leads the JKLM acronym. Lafayette too, although census predictions point to declining enrollment there over the next 10 years.

I don't get your point. I don't really care how much each individual feeder school is bloating Deal's enrollment; I just want the enrollment to drop. You seem like you might have some vendetta against Janney. If your solution to Deal's overenrollment is for DCPS to build another middle school in Upper Northwest, I'm sure all the people who live there will be very happy. But IMHO that seems like a poor approach. Also, I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to what would be perceived as even more favors for Upper Northwest.

Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

Yeah because cutting the 12 kids from Crestwood and the 30 from Shepherd are going to make things A-ok at Deal.

Actually, it will. Because those 42 kids and some others would form the backbone of the new proposed MS.

[jsteele]

Here is a FAQ about the boundary changes:

Boundary Tweaks FAQ.PDF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

Yeah because cutting the 12 kids from Crestwood and the 30 from Shepherd are going to make things A-ok at Deal.

Well, according to the Code for DC map (http://edu.codefordc.org/#!/school/405), you're exaggerating substantially how few students come to Deal from those neighborhoods. Here is a sample of the Deal students from some other areas and how they might reduce enrollment:

Shepherd Park area - 64 students
Takoma area - 63 students
Crestwood/Petworth area - 128 students
Mt. Pleasant area - 107 students
Total - 362 students

Deal enrollment without those students - 943 (back what it was in 2011)

[Anonymous]

If a school is overcrowded, then why wouldnt 42 kids in each year (x3 for Deal and X4 for Wilson) make a difference?

The answer for each school cannot be --but it is such a small number look the other way. This is why these schools are and will continue to be overcrowded.

DCPS is unwilling to redraw boundaries to create viable alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Great. Bowser's tweaks didn't save Deal for our neighborhood. Clearly, we don't matter. She's not our mayor, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alice Deal enrollment over the years (with citations)

2009-10 - 866 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/DCPS-School-Profile-DEAL-Jan-11.pdf)
2010-11 - 867 (http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/Learn-About-Schools/DCPS-Middle-School-Guide-2010-2011.pdf)
2011-12 - 1014 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/deal2012.pdf)
2012-13 - 1165 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/405_2013.pdf)
2013-14 - 1248 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Deal+Middle+School)
2014-15 - 1305 (http://alicedeal.org/faq-the-deal-facts/)

The plan Mayor Bowser just "tweaked" was supposed to stem this flow. I fear she may be pouring water back into the boat.

Great, now why don't you post up the stats for Janney's growth? Want to know which of the Deal feeders is causing the Deal population to increase? Here's a hint, it's WOTP and leads the JKLM acronym. Lafayette too, although census predictions point to declining enrollment there over the next 10 years.

I don't get your point. I don't really care how much each individual feeder school is bloating Deal's enrollment; I just want the enrollment to drop. You seem like you might have some vendetta against Janney. If your solution to Deal's overenrollment is for DCPS to build another middle school in Upper Northwest, I'm sure all the people who live there will be very happy. But IMHO that seems like a poor approach. Also, I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to what would be perceived as even more favors for Upper Northwest.

Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

I don't have anything against Janney, but my anecdotal impression is that Janney parents have been the most vocal on the Deal crowding issue, during the DME process and on DCUM. IIUC, the whole DME process got started in the first place because Cheh's constituents pushed her to advocate to reduce Deal crowding. Her constituency (Ward 3) is larger than Janney but Janney is the largest public school parent population.

You implicitly assume that WOTP schools should be last on the block when it comes to reducing Deal enrollment. Isn't it equally fair game to talk about removing part of the Janney district from Deal, rezoning it to Mann and Hardy? After all, Mann is small and Janney is crowded, so if reducing crowding is your intention, you can accomplish it at Janney and Deal simultaneously. That's just an example. Another example would be assigning Eaton to Hardy whereas before it had dual rights to Deal and Hardy. As you know, that second example was chosen by the DME committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 I am in a home now granted back into Deal, but I sure would rather walk to a smaller, strong McFarland Middle school than drive across town to an oversubscribed Deal. I am at a DCI feeder, so ultimately it probably won't matter for my family, but you never know and it would be nice to have a strong neighborhood middle school as a backup for my family and a comfortable option for the neighborhood kids.

[Anonymous]

Deal/Wilson overcrowding is due to the feeder patterns (i.e OOB students) and NOT the EOTP schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, let's make a bet. I'm the poster who thinks development will slow. You think it won't. Let's pick a measuring stick we can agree on, and we'll revisit where we stand over the next few years. What should we use?

Funding plans for the new middle school. I think the major renovation money goes in the 2017 budget with some planning dollars in 2016. I'd consider anything later than that to be slowing. Deal? (pun intended)

Works for me, but let's make it even more specific. Do you have any links to where there's been discussion about those current 2016 and 2017 budget plans? Have there been any targets set for re-opening?

I don't think there's been a formal date set (or discussed) by the city. I think the implementation plan from former mayor Gray just said that it would be address in the FY16 budget.

The only faster thing than what I suggested would be to get full construction funding in FY16, and that seems unrealistic.

OK, fair enough. Let's go with your proposal. I agree there will be some planning money in the 2016 budget, but I say 2017 will just have more planning money. Real substantial renovation money won't come until the 2018 or 2019 budget, and we won't have the school open before 2019.

Sounds like a fair bet. I will be impressed if you remember to bring up this post in a few months / years. I will be depressed if I'm still checking in here often enough to notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, let's make a bet. I'm the poster who thinks development will slow. You think it won't. Let's pick a measuring stick we can agree on, and we'll revisit where we stand over the next few years. What should we use?

Funding plans for the new middle school. I think the major renovation money goes in the 2017 budget with some planning dollars in 2016. I'd consider anything later than that to be slowing. Deal? (pun intended)

Works for me, but let's make it even more specific. Do you have any links to where there's been discussion about those current 2016 and 2017 budget plans? Have there been any targets set for re-opening?

I don't think there's been a formal date set (or discussed) by the city. I think the implementation plan from former mayor Gray just said that it would be address in the FY16 budget.

The only faster thing than what I suggested would be to get full construction funding in FY16, and that seems unrealistic.

OK, fair enough. Let's go with your proposal. I agree there will be some planning money in the 2016 budget, but I say 2017 will just have more planning money. Real substantial renovation money won't come until the 2018 or 2019 budget, and we won't have the school open before 2019.

Sounds like a fair bet. I will be impressed if you remember to bring up this post in a few months / years. I will be depressed if I'm still checking in here often enough to notice.

Wait, I think I win at this stage. Look at the FAQs that Jeff posted - they say opening in 2017/2018 depending on the extent of the modernization. Now you can feel free to revisit this win once the actual budgets come in...

[Anonymous]

It is dishonest for Bowser to pretend Deal and Wilson will not be even more overcrowded by 2022 than they currently are.

Did anyone not ask this at the session or did it go right to pot questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 I am in a home now granted back into Deal, but I sure would rather walk to a smaller, strong McFarland Middle school than drive across town to an oversubscribed Deal. I am at a DCI feeder, so ultimately it probably won't matter for my family, but you never know and it would be nice to have a strong neighborhood middle school as a backup for my family and a comfortable option for the neighborhood kids.

Your precious snowflake can always get on the D34 bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, let's make a bet. I'm the poster who thinks development will slow. You think it won't. Let's pick a measuring stick we can agree on, and we'll revisit where we stand over the next few years. What should we use?

Funding plans for the new middle school. I think the major renovation money goes in the 2017 budget with some planning dollars in 2016. I'd consider anything later than that to be slowing. Deal? (pun intended)

Works for me, but let's make it even more specific. Do you have any links to where there's been discussion about those current 2016 and 2017 budget plans? Have there been any targets set for re-opening?

I don't think there's been a formal date set (or discussed) by the city. I think the implementation plan from former mayor Gray just said that it would be address in the FY16 budget.

The only faster thing than what I suggested would be to get full construction funding in FY16, and that seems unrealistic.

OK, fair enough. Let's go with your proposal. I agree there will be some planning money in the 2016 budget, but I say 2017 will just have more planning money. Real substantial renovation money won't come until the 2018 or 2019 budget, and we won't have the school open before 2019.

Sounds like a fair bet. I will be impressed if you remember to bring up this post in a few months / years. I will be depressed if I'm still checking in here often enough to notice.

Bet is on. I'll just copy the link into a Google calendar reminder for 1 year out, so it acts as a reminder for me. I'll see where we are and post a new thread. Wherever our bet is, I'm sure the school boundary debate will still be going on for several more years, so I'm guessing it'll still be current.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

Yeah because cutting the 12 kids from Crestwood and the 30 from Shepherd are going to make things A-ok at Deal.

Well, according to the Code for DC map (http://edu.codefordc.org/#!/school/405), you're exaggerating substantially how few students come to Deal from those neighborhoods. Here is a sample of the Deal students from some other areas and how they might reduce enrollment:

Shepherd Park area - 64 students
Takoma area - 63 students
Crestwood/Petworth area - 128 students
Mt. Pleasant area - 107 students
Total - 362 students

Deal enrollment without those students - 943 (back what it was in 2011)

Your numbers don't dispute what the PP wrote about Crestwood and Shepherd Park. Your numbers are for all 3 years at Deal (so actually fewer than the 30 students per year that PP suggested for Shepherd) and Crestwood is lumped in with Petworth, which is a very large area. Those kids from Petworth are all OOB at Hearst, Eaton, etc.

[Anonymous]

"Also, due to additional information
and process needs, the recommendation that in-boundary students who move out-ofboundary
may stay for the remainder of the year but must apply to the My School DC
System in order to obtain a seat beyond the end of the school-year will not be
implemented for SY15-16 (recommendation 4)."

This is hidden in the FAQ document. So, move now if you are planning to leave your school zone but wanted to stay!