Boundary Study Townhalls - first one starts now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

Absolutely incorrect and not just WOTP. Many schools cross wards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

You really are entirely mistaken.

Nope. Just have lived in DC for 25+ years before and have been through this before. And actually, the current plan is to reassess schoolboundaries every 10 years or so on a fixed schedule to take some of the politics out of it.

Doesn’t the JR catchment include parts of W4 and W1?

Yep - and it’s part of what is expected to be addressed during the boundary review. The head of the boundary review called the J-R catchment as the worse example of boundary “gerrymandering.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

You really are entirely mistaken.

Nope. Just have lived in DC for 25+ years before and have been through this before. And actually, the current plan is to reassess schoolboundaries every 10 years or so on a fixed schedule to take some of the politics out of it.

Doesn’t the JR catchment include parts of W4 and W1?

Yep - and it’s part of what is expected to be addressed during the boundary review. The head of the boundary review called the J-R catchment as the worse example of boundary “gerrymandering.”

So yes, ward boundaries are irrelevant to school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

You really are entirely mistaken.

Nope. Just have lived in DC for 25+ years before and have been through this before. And actually, the current plan is to reassess schoolboundaries every 10 years or so on a fixed schedule to take some of the politics out of it.

Doesn’t the JR catchment include parts of W4 and W1?

Yep - and it’s part of what is expected to be addressed during the boundary review. The head of the boundary review called the J-R catchment as the worse example of boundary “gerrymandering.”

So yes, ward boundaries are irrelevant to school boundaries.

Not according to the mayor, the city council, or the boundary review committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

Absolutely incorrect and not just WOTP. Many schools cross wards.

Since the PP seems so insistent that feeder patterns should be consistent with ward boundaries unless there is a programmatic reason, then I guess they would support Shepherd remaining a Deal feeder since it’s IB curriculum meets the exception for a programmatic reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

You really are entirely mistaken.

Nope. Just have lived in DC for 25+ years before and have been through this before. And actually, the current plan is to reassess schoolboundaries every 10 years or so on a fixed schedule to take some of the politics out of it.

Doesn’t the JR catchment include parts of W4 and W1?

Yep - and it’s part of what is expected to be addressed during the boundary review. The head of the boundary review called the J-R catchment as the worse example of boundary “gerrymandering.”

So yes, ward boundaries are irrelevant to school boundaries.

Not according to the mayor, the city council, or the boundary review committee.

The actual maps prove you wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

This is not true at all. DCPS went 40 years -- 1973 to 2013 -- without systematic boundary reviews. In that time the ward boundaries moved four times, the city lost and then regained roughly 20% of its population. I participated in the 2013 boundary review, there was never any discussion of ward boundaries.

If anything, when it's time to redraw ward boundaries after the census sometimes school attendance boundaries are given as a consideration for where ward boundaries should be moved. But it rarely has much sway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

This is not true at all. DCPS went 40 years -- 1973 to 2013 -- without systematic boundary reviews. In that time the ward boundaries moved four times, the city lost and then regained roughly 20% of its population. I participated in the 2013 boundary review, there was never any discussion of ward boundaries.

If anything, when it's time to redraw ward boundaries after the census sometimes school attendance boundaries are given as a consideration for where ward boundaries should be moved. But it rarely has much sway.

Cite? This is nonsense. Because school boundaries are independent from Ward boundaries and funding isn't based on Wards, why would this be a consideration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

Absolutely incorrect and not just WOTP. Many schools cross wards.

Since the PP seems so insistent that feeder patterns should be consistent with ward boundaries unless there is a programmatic reason, then I guess they would support Shepherd remaining a Deal feeder since it’s IB curriculum meets the exception for a programmatic reason.

Hahaha - we get it you want to enshrine your privilege real bad - crabs in a barrel bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

This is not true at all. DCPS went 40 years -- 1973 to 2013 -- without systematic boundary reviews. In that time the ward boundaries moved four times, the city lost and then regained roughly 20% of its population. I participated in the 2013 boundary review, there was never any discussion of ward boundaries.

If anything, when it's time to redraw ward boundaries after the census sometimes school attendance boundaries are given as a consideration for where ward boundaries should be moved. But it rarely has much sway.

Cite? This is nonsense. Because school boundaries are independent from Ward boundaries and funding isn't based on Wards, why would this be a consideration?

My cite is sitting in on the ward redistricting meetings. The idea of a political subdivision is that you lump together people with similar interests. In general, people -- at least the kind of people who attend these meetings -- don't like being moved to a new ward. So the people on the boundary have to come up with arguments why they have more in common with the bulk of the people in the ward, as opposed to people somewhere else on the boundary. So one of the things they will latch onto is school boundaries.

But, as I said, it rarely has much sway. In the big picture of DC politics the schools aren't a big consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward is irrelevant to DCPS catchments.

You are incorrect. Unless there is a programmatic reason (e.g., foreign language), feeder paths have been and are generally supposed to be within one's ward. In part, because council members are divided by wards and routinely advocate for the schools within their wards. As do ANCs -divided by wards, as well as stakeholder organizations (educational advocacy groups, etc), which are divided by ward. This was, in fact, one of the explanations given to Crestwood when it was zoned out of Deal/Wilson (now J-R).

You really are entirely mistaken.

Nope. Just have lived in DC for 25+ years before and have been through this before. And actually, the current plan is to reassess schoolboundaries every 10 years or so on a fixed schedule to take some of the politics out of it.

Doesn’t the JR catchment include parts of W4 and W1?

Yep - and it’s part of what is expected to be addressed during the boundary review. The head of the boundary review called the J-R catchment as the worse example of boundary “gerrymandering.”

So yes, ward boundaries are irrelevant to school boundaries.

Not according to the mayor, the city council, or the boundary review committee.

The actual maps prove you wrong.

Funny! They have released the map yet from the review process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the Whittier poster - were you not aware of the crappy building and rats before you enrolled your child? Another question- once you became aware, did you choose to keep your child there, with no assurances from anyone that the situation was going to change? If the answer to either one of these questions is yes, then sit down somewhere and focus on making some choices that will actually help your child rather than complaining into the void of DCUM. Move or play the lottery. It gets so tiring when people refuse to play the cards they’ve been dealt. Assume nothing will change in DCPS and be surprised when it does. Make your choices accordingly (and if you are posting here, you probably do have choices)

I am a Whittier parent and we didn’t get in to any other school in the lottery. You know that happens right? This is why people complain about upper NW parents not actually giving a crap about anyone else. But when their Petunia doesn’t get into a higher level math class then burn the whole system down.

Y’all are missing the point. The very thing you hate about the NW parents is that they are not afraid to go crazy over anything they think is not in line with an ideal education. So the thing that you hate about them is what makes them so successful. And they don’t really spend their time unleashing their crazy to this forum (even if it seems like it…I know a few like to argue here). They mostly unleash their crazy on school admin, city council, DCPS, the Mayor’s office, the Washington Post, etc.

So here is my advice. And I am being serious not snarky. Instead of analyzing on here your various levels of hate of this kind of parent behavior and then wishing their kids would go to your school so they can do the “crazy” work for your school…spend your time adopting a little “crazy” and going after the people who can do something. Maybe email the PTA’s of these places and ask for advice on how to be as crazy as they are. Do you really think they would embarrass themselves in this way if it didn’t work to go ape s**t if they don’t get nice buildings, AP course offerings and the like?

It’s not the zero sum game you think it is. There is room for every school to succeed. DCPS/government is lazy with your school because they can be. You are model parents to them. Gold star. And what do you get for it?

New to this convo, but if anyone asked me to explain the DCUM population, I'd just show them the screenshot I took. 10/10 crazy

Sure. There are crazies here. My point is that being crazy here gets you very little. Being crazy with public officials gets you a lot.

So much ignorance to unpack. Whittier is in NW. NW does not begin and end with Chevy Chase and Glover Park. MC kids not IB for Deal/J-R/ the new “Palisades Prep,” are spending hours in the car every day commuting to Hyde-Addison and Hearst just for a chance to attend Hardy or Deal. We are doing are part - and we are making noise - but we are also going to call out the hypocrisy of out of ward feeders, double optional feeders, entitled behavior from Chevy Chase, Bancroft, Shepherd, JkLM, etc. etc.

What are these?

Expensive neighborhoods and schools in expensive neighborhoods.

(JKLM = Janney, Key, Lafayette, Mann)

No, the bolded: out of ward feeders, double optional feeders

Shepherd (out of ward), Bancroft (out of ward/dual feeder), a good chunk of Lafayette is out of ward, Oyster-Adams (double feeder), Murch has a chunk out of ward. Ross, I think. There a few others.

Bancroft has three possible feeds, Deal, MacFarland and CHEC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the Whittier poster - were you not aware of the crappy building and rats before you enrolled your child? Another question- once you became aware, did you choose to keep your child there, with no assurances from anyone that the situation was going to change? If the answer to either one of these questions is yes, then sit down somewhere and focus on making some choices that will actually help your child rather than complaining into the void of DCUM. Move or play the lottery. It gets so tiring when people refuse to play the cards they’ve been dealt. Assume nothing will change in DCPS and be surprised when it does. Make your choices accordingly (and if you are posting here, you probably do have choices)

I am a Whittier parent and we didn’t get in to any other school in the lottery. You know that happens right? This is why people complain about upper NW parents not actually giving a crap about anyone else. But when their Petunia doesn’t get into a higher level math class then burn the whole system down.

Y’all are missing the point. The very thing you hate about the NW parents is that they are not afraid to go crazy over anything they think is not in line with an ideal education. So the thing that you hate about them is what makes them so successful. And they don’t really spend their time unleashing their crazy to this forum (even if it seems like it…I know a few like to argue here). They mostly unleash their crazy on school admin, city council, DCPS, the Mayor’s office, the Washington Post, etc.

So here is my advice. And I am being serious not snarky. Instead of analyzing on here your various levels of hate of this kind of parent behavior and then wishing their kids would go to your school so they can do the “crazy” work for your school…spend your time adopting a little “crazy” and going after the people who can do something. Maybe email the PTA’s of these places and ask for advice on how to be as crazy as they are. Do you really think they would embarrass themselves in this way if it didn’t work to go ape s**t if they don’t get nice buildings, AP course offerings and the like?

It’s not the zero sum game you think it is. There is room for every school to succeed. DCPS/government is lazy with your school because they can be. You are model parents to them. Gold star. And what do you get for it?

New to this convo, but if anyone asked me to explain the DCUM population, I'd just show them the screenshot I took. 10/10 crazy

Sure. There are crazies here. My point is that being crazy here gets you very little. Being crazy with public officials gets you a lot.

So much ignorance to unpack. Whittier is in NW. NW does not begin and end with Chevy Chase and Glover Park. MC kids not IB for Deal/J-R/ the new “Palisades Prep,” are spending hours in the car every day commuting to Hyde-Addison and Hearst just for a chance to attend Hardy or Deal. We are doing are part - and we are making noise - but we are also going to call out the hypocrisy of out of ward feeders, double optional feeders, entitled behavior from Chevy Chase, Bancroft, Shepherd, JkLM, etc. etc.

What are these?

Expensive neighborhoods and schools in expensive neighborhoods.

(JKLM = Janney, Key, Lafayette, Mann)

No, the bolded: out of ward feeders, double optional feeders

Shepherd (out of ward), Bancroft (out of ward/dual feeder), a good chunk of Lafayette is out of ward, Oyster-Adams (double feeder), Murch has a chunk out of ward. Ross, I think. There a few others.

Bancroft has three possible feeds, Deal, MacFarland and CHEC.

Seems ward boundaries and school boundaries are not the same for so many schools.

[Anonymous]

Why does everyone fret so much about in boundary and out of boundary in DC?

Just attend the school in your area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone fret so much about in boundary and out of boundary in DC?

Just attend the school in your area.