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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is Shepherd Park elementary? Is it a good school?

http://www.shepherd-elementary.org/about/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is Shepherd Park elementary? Is it a good school?

http://www.shepherd-elementary.org/about/

It was a joke, it's called Shepherd Elementary. No "Park".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is Shepherd Park elementary? Is it a good school?

http://www.shepherd-elementary.org/about/

It was a joke, it's called Shepherd Elementary. No "Park".

Seems to be a common mistake. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22shepherd+park+elementary%22+dc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is Shepherd Park elementary? Is it a good school?

http://www.shepherd-elementary.org/about/

It was a joke, it's called Shepherd Elementary. No "Park".

Seems to be a common mistake. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22shepherd+park+elementary%22+dc

I don't see many common errors. People saying where can they find a Shepherd Park elementary tutor and a Post profile from 2012 doesn't excuse one from knowing a school's name. Especially when it's one of the only IB elementary school's in the city.

[Anonymous]

You'd think someone like Muriel Bowser would get it right!
http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/bowser/downloads/1-23-12%20Shepherd%20Crime%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, I like her ok. But honestly, I went to her budget meeting at Coolidge last month and was really annoyed at all the smoke and mirrors. Asking us to discuss questions and documenting our input so that she can just pick and choose what she wants to support her ideas, no reporting out so taht everyone in the room could hear all the ideas (and criticisms) being offered up, no opportunity for questions, and to date no reporting out publicly from that meeting (or either of the other two meetings). I just don't trust her and giving her buddy from Chicago the go ahead to pursue that boys school was just the icing on the cake. No studies offered to support the idea, no nothing. Just telling us that boys of color lag behind and we need to do something. Well, OK, I agree we need to help boys of color if they lag behind everyone else but where is the data and proof that underlies her offered, hand-picked solution?

There is TONS of data. For instance, DC's graduation rate is 59%, but just 36% for boys of color. What else needs to be said. Something needs to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You'd think someone like Muriel Bowser would get it right!
http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/bowser/downloads/1-23-12%20Shepherd%20Crime%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf

Oh so you're putting yourself in the same category as a low level staff DC govt employee from 2012. Good to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kelly Miller retains Wilson access, too. Great, so the problems all remain.

How? For the 80 families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don't think PP's reference to "12 from Crestwood" and "30 from Shepherd" ever suggested it was a per-year number. If that's what she meant, then she was being misleading by not including the multi-year totals. Either way, it's indisputably a large number of kids coming from those neighborhoods to Deal, so removing them from the Deal boundary would help relieve overcrowding. Second, I get that Crestwood is lumped together with Petworth and other neighborhoods, so it's tough to get a read on exactly how many kids (total or per-year) are attending Deal from just Crestwood. But my point still stands that if the 128 kids from those collective neighborhoods begin attending another middle school besides Deal, it will help reduce overcrowding at Deal. (And just so we're clear, I know it's unlikely to be those exact same 128 kids, because they'll have grandfather rights even before today's "tweaks," so we're really talking about a roughly equivalent number of future kids.)

I stand by my view that the only way to reduce enrollment at Deal is to shrink the boundaries. And those neighborhoods are the clearly obvious choice to be removed, because they are farthest away and because there are other middle schools that could absorb the kids. I hear the other PP's point about instead shifting the southern boundary of Deal, and pushing more kids to Hardy. That's a hypothetical option too, if Hardy has the capacity to absorb the excess. My sense is that Hardy is more limited because of it's location.

Just on the Hardy point, it's got a very low IB percentage, so there is plenty of room at Hardy if the city wanted to expand its attendance zone and/or add another feeder.

[Anonymous]

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

Who did you vote for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'd think someone like Muriel Bowser would get it right!
http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/bowser/downloads/1-23-12%20Shepherd%20Crime%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf

Oh so you're putting yourself in the same category as a low level staff DC govt employee from 2012. Good to know.

I don't even understand you now. It's a press release from Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser. The very first sentence of the damn thing refers to "Shepherd Park Elementary." If anyone should know the correct name of the school, it's the Councilmember representing that Ward. I don't live in Ward 4 (or Ward 3), so I perhaps should get a pass. But in the interest of good spirit and conversation, I'll apologize for getting the elementary school's name wrong. Please amend my prior post to refer to "Shepherd Elementary" instead. I hope you will accept my apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'd think someone like Muriel Bowser would get it right!
http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/bowser/downloads/1-23-12%20Shepherd%20Crime%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf

Oh so you're putting yourself in the same category as a low level staff DC govt employee from 2012. Good to know.

I don't even understand you now. It's a press release from Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser. The very first sentence of the damn thing refers to "Shepherd Park Elementary." If anyone should know the correct name of the school, it's the Councilmember representing that Ward. I don't live in Ward 4 (or Ward 3), so I perhaps should get a pass. But in the interest of good spirit and conversation, I'll apologize for getting the elementary school's name wrong. Please amend my prior post to refer to "Shepherd Elementary" instead. I hope you will accept my apology.

Apology accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... I hear the other PP's point about instead shifting the southern boundary of Deal, and pushing more kids to Hardy. That's a hypothetical option too, if Hardy has the capacity to absorb the excess. My sense is that Hardy is more limited because of it's location.

Just on the Hardy point, it's got a very low IB percentage, so there is plenty of room at Hardy if the city wanted to expand its attendance zone and/or add another feeder.

Fine by me. Why do you think that wasn't considered as a means to control Deal's overenrollment? It would save the Mayor's office from getting deluged with angry calls from Jeff and other Crestwood residents. I suppose she'd be getting lots of angry calls from the people who got moved from Deal to Hardy, but they're a lot less sympathetic, given how Hardy stacks up against MacFarland. Maybe that's a change to consider in the next round of bickering (in 2022!). I'm guessing there is some other logistical problem we're not seeing right now. Any ideas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... I hear the other PP's point about instead shifting the southern boundary of Deal, and pushing more kids to Hardy. That's a hypothetical option too, if Hardy has the capacity to absorb the excess. My sense is that Hardy is more limited because of it's location.

Just on the Hardy point, it's got a very low IB percentage, so there is plenty of room at Hardy if the city wanted to expand its attendance zone and/or add another feeder.

Fine by me. Why do you think that wasn't considered as a means to control Deal's overenrollment? It would save the Mayor's office from getting deluged with angry calls from Jeff and other Crestwood residents. I suppose she'd be getting lots of angry calls from the people who got moved from Deal to Hardy, but they're a lot less sympathetic, given how Hardy stacks up against MacFarland. Maybe that's a change to consider in the next round of bickering (in 2022!). I'm guessing there is some other logistical problem we're not seeing right now. Any ideas?

Yeah, why aren't people waiting for XX middle school given the option to go to Hardy in the meantime? Makes more sense.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:With regard to the concern expressed in some posts that todays "tweaks" will undermine MacFarland and Roosevelt, here is my view. The changes announced today might actually help those schools:

1. Today's changes probably won't change the number of neighborhood children attending Deal and Wilson, but they also won't reduce the number that would have potentially gone to MacFarland or Wilson. The previous boundary changes had caused something close to panic in Crestwood (I can't speak for 16th Street Heights, but I would not be surprised if it was true there as well). In that atmosphere, few were willing to hear arguments in favor of MacFarland or Roosevelt. Just about everyone was thinking of a way to avoid being forced into them, whether that be by moving, going private, getting into Deal/Wilson feeders, or charters. So, the analysis that there are currently X number of kids that go to Deal and Wilson and, therefore, today's changes mean X less for MacFarland and Roosevelt is incorrect. Not many were likely to go to MacFarland or Roosevelt.

2) The previous changes would have reduced interest in the neighborhood among those interested in DCPS. The improvements at Powell and West had just started attracting new residents (whereas Deal and Wilson have always attracted residents). However, uncertainty about the middle and high schools could reduce the attractiveness of West and Powell and made Crestwood less popular among those interested in DCPS. So, today's changes will likely attract new residents committed to DCPS from pre-K through 12.

3) The safety valve of Deal and Wilson will allow residents -- especially those with younger children -- to look at MacFarland and Roosevelt more objectively. Residents may be more willing to get involved with or seriously consider those schools knowing that they have good fallback options. To the extent that the Deal/Wilson grandfathering helps attract families that are also interested in West or Powell, those families will be incentivized to remain a part of those communities at MacFarland and, later, Roosevelt.

The bottom line is that DCPS could not force people with options to attend schools against their will. As a result, few neighborhood residents were ever going to attend MacFarland/Roosevelt prior to 2022 in any case. Now that they are not being forced, some residents will consider the options as a choice. This evaluation will occur in a much more positive atmosphere. To the extent that Crestwood and 16th Street Heights contribute to overcrowding at Deal/Wilson, that is simply further encouragement to consider MacFarland and Roosevelt.

Jeff, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I don't really agree with your underlying point though. In essence, you seem to be saying that just about everyone from the Crestwood/16thSH area would have refused to attend MacFarland/Roosevelt out sheer rage after having lost access to Deal/Wilson. In effect, you're saying they're like the frustrated voters from 2004 who threaten to run away to Canada rather than live under the oppressive yoke of the the Bush dictatorship. I think that's unrealistic exaggeration, for the same reason I thought it was an exaggeration 2004. People get mad and threaten to leave, and some do actually leave, but most will stay and muddle through because they lack options or inertia is just to strong. It's those that stay who would form the strong core of MacFarland/Roosevelt.

You suggest that if families can choose either Deal/Wilson or MacFarland/Roosevelt, they will somehow start to embrace MacFarland/Roosevelt. I think that's unrealistic. If given the choice, I cannot imagine anyone leaving the safe choice of Deal to take a chance on MacFarland. I fear that almost everyone with actual choice will choose Deal. The families who choose MacFarland are more likely to be those with particularly complex circumstances where school proximity is paramount. I predict the highest SES families, and the families most motivated by education (two similar, but not identical, groups), will arrange to choose Deal. As a result, MacFarland/Roosevelt will look less attractive and will spiral downward. I am perhaps a cynic, but I consider my pessimistic view more realistic here.

IMHO, few political leaders will make the right choice when it's a hard one that's personally damaging to them. Vincent Gray was in the rare position to make a hard - but right - choice without much damage, and I applaud him for doing it. Here, I fear Mayor Bowser took the easy path that helps her political position, but hurts DCPS as a whole.