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

[Anonymous]

What's up with the Shepherd hater on this thread? They have not mentioned Bancroft not once.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC press staff can't spell Randle Highlands. Whomp, whomp.

Well, the Mayor's press release regarding full deployment of garbage trucks this weekend announced a "All Hanks on Deck" policy. So, I assume Hank Williams, Hank Aaron, etc. will all be deployed.

How embarrassing. Is the DC government actively trying to reclaim the moniker of "Dysfunctional City"?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Regarding your first paragraph, I am not ascribing motivations as to why my neighbors wouldn't go to MacFarland or Roosevelt. It may be sheer rage or it may be something else. All I know is that they were actively making plans to avoid those schools (the most common reasons expressed were not rage but the fact that one school doesn't exist and the other has a bad reputation). The comparison to moving to Canada is a false analogy on many levels. First, those claiming they would go to Canada were always a very small minority of those on the losing side. In my experience, the number of Crestwood residents who would avoid MacFarland and Wilson was over 90% of those with potientialy-impacted children. It is exponentially easier to enter charter school and OOB lotteries than it is to move to Canada. It is less easier than that, but still easier, to write a check for private school then to move to Canada. Finally, it is also easier to move West of the Park or to the the close in suburbs then to move to Canada.

MacFarland will never be popular among Crestwood residents unless it can sell itself. No amount of drawing boundaries on paper will force my neighbors to go there. With Deal as an alternative, the sales job is harder. But, MacFarland can distinguish itself with a smaller environment, language immersion, geographic convenience, and a close and supportive community. The issue up for debate is the impact on MacFarland of having Deal as a competitor versus the alienation from DCPS resulting from not having Deal as an option. My analysis is that the Deal option helps MacFarland because it helps attract neighborhood families to Powell and West and encourages younger families to stop focusing on their exist strategies and keeps them engaged long enough to take a look at MacFarland. Whether the neighborhood engages with Roosevelt depends almost entirely on what happens with MacFarland.

[Anonymous]

I dont agree with PP analysis. In fact West was a feeder to deal until it became an education campus under Rhee. Then people at West could stay through 8th grade and go to Roosevelt. last year not one student went from West to Roosevelt. They went to charters, School with out Walls, Banneker, McKinley Tech and pirvates. Not one went to Roosevelt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the Shepherd hater on this thread? They have not mentioned Bancroft not once.

Ha! She's been lurking on quite a few Shepherd threads lately. Maybe she has an ex named Shepherd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the Shepherd hater on this thread? They have not mentioned Bancroft not once.

Have no fear. If I were managing the boundary plan, I'd look at pushing Bancroft out of the Deal orbit too. They must have a lot of political suction to have avoided getting re-zoned the first time. And to be clear, I don't consider myself a "hater" at all. I have several good friends in all those neighborhoods, and live pretty close to SP. But they're all the farthest neighborhoods from Deal, and they've got other nearby middle school options.

Quite frankly, I think the best plan would have been for the DME to cut all three out of Deal, and give all three rights to MacFarland or some other centrally located EOTP middle school, so they could form the nucleus of that school. I think cutting small pieces of neighborhoods out of Deal in little bites is a bad move, because the tiny number of people removed are not enough to reinvigorate another school - the task is just too daunting. So instead, as Jeff suggested in his PP, the small numbers will look at other options. But if the Mayor's office shifts a big group of people, they have a better chance to thrive by working together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I know other middle / high SES families from the neighborhood that are interested in MacFarland and not because of "complex circumstances". Pretty simply, I feel that our neighbors in Petworth are more of a community to us than people WOTP, and I want our kids to go to school in the community - at least through middle school. Sure, it needs to have a good environment and good academic offerings, but it doesn't need to be the same as Deal. Even Roosevelt has more academic offerings being put on the table. If the school environment can be shown to be better... well, ok - I'm focused on MS now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the Shepherd hater on this thread? They have not mentioned Bancroft not once.

Have no fear. If I were managing the boundary plan, I'd look at pushing Bancroft out of the Deal orbit too. They must have a lot of political suction to have avoided getting re-zoned the first time. And to be clear, I don't consider myself a "hater" at all. I have several good friends in all those neighborhoods, and live pretty close to SP. But they're all the farthest neighborhoods from Deal, and they've got other nearby middle school options.

Quite frankly, I think the best plan would have been for the DME to cut all three out of Deal, and give all three rights to MacFarland or some other centrally located EOTP middle school, so they could form the nucleus of that school. I think cutting small pieces of neighborhoods out of Deal in little bites is a bad move, because the tiny number of people removed are not enough to reinvigorate another school - the task is just too daunting. So instead, as Jeff suggested in his PP, the small numbers will look at other options. But if the Mayor's office shifts a big group of people, they have a better chance to thrive by working together.

There is no centrally located middle school and MacFarland is not open.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:... MacFarland will never be popular among Crestwood residents unless it can sell itself. No amount of drawing boundaries on paper will force my neighbors to go there. With Deal as an alternative, the sales job is harder. But, MacFarland can distinguish itself with a smaller environment, language immersion, geographic convenience, and a close and supportive community. The issue up for debate is the impact on MacFarland of having Deal as a competitor versus the alienation from DCPS resulting from not having Deal as an option. My analysis is that the Deal option helps MacFarland because it helps attract neighborhood families to Powell and West and encourages younger families to stop focusing on their exist strategies and keeps them engaged long enough to take a look at MacFarland. Whether the neighborhood engages with Roosevelt depends almost entirely on what happens with MacFarland.

Fair point on my running-to-Canada analogy; that was too flip. I'll retract it. But I do think it's easy for 90% of your neighbors to talk tough about joining charters, selling their houses, sending children to private schools. When decision time comes, I suspect less than 90% would seize one of those options. The rest would send their children to MacFarland, and hopefully make it a better place. You position seems to be that young families will stay in Crestwood/16thSH and will send children to Powell and West, and then somehow be convinced to stay for MacFarland. I think it's more likely those families will be moving to Crestwood/16thSH largely because it ensures access to Deal, and there's only 1 in 100 who will willingly choose MacFarland over Deal. When MacFarland was open, how many of your Crestwood neighbors chose MacFarland over Deal? That's likely the most empirical evidence here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the Shepherd hater on this thread? They have not mentioned Bancroft not once.

Have no fear. If I were managing the boundary plan, I'd look at pushing Bancroft out of the Deal orbit too. They must have a lot of political suction to have avoided getting re-zoned the first time. And to be clear, I don't consider myself a "hater" at all. I have several good friends in all those neighborhoods, and live pretty close to SP. But they're all the farthest neighborhoods from Deal, and they've got other nearby middle school options.

Quite frankly, I think the best plan would have been for the DME to cut all three out of Deal, and give all three rights to MacFarland or some other centrally located EOTP middle school, so they could form the nucleus of that school. I think cutting small pieces of neighborhoods out of Deal in little bites is a bad move, because the tiny number of people removed are not enough to reinvigorate another school - the task is just too daunting. So instead, as Jeff suggested in his PP, the small numbers will look at other options. But if the Mayor's office shifts a big group of people, they have a better chance to thrive by working together.

You live close to SP? Do you live in Lafayette bounds? You do know Lafayette has just as much a chance of getting cut as Shepherd right? Bowser has said over and over (and many other potential mayors that will succeed her), they will not cut off access to WOTP schools from EOTP kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know other middle / high SES families from the neighborhood that are interested in MacFarland and not because of "complex circumstances". Pretty simply, I feel that our neighbors in Petworth are more of a community to us than people WOTP, and I want our kids to go to school in the community - at least through middle school. Sure, it needs to have a good environment and good academic offerings, but it doesn't need to be the same as Deal. Even Roosevelt has more academic offerings being put on the table. If the school environment can be shown to be better... well, ok - I'm focused on MS now.

That's encouraging to hear, and it gives me some hope for MacFarland. For those middle/high SES families who prefer the 2017-18 MacFarland, they presumably don't care about losing access to Deal, right? Is that a majority of families?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:When MacFarland was open, how many of your Crestwood neighbors chose MacFarland over Deal? That's likely the most empirical evidence here.

That is not valid empirical evidence because the MacFarland that will be reopened will have almost nothing in common with the MacFarland that closed (or at least one hopes). But, to answer the question, none went there. Similarly, almost the entire time that we have lived inbounds for Powell, no neighbors sent children there. That only started happening in the last couple of years. If we judged by the numbers during the time MacFarland was open, we would conclude that nobody in Crestwood would go to Powell. We know that is simply not true. Powell changed and we expect that MacFarland will also change.

BTW, the fact that there was 100% avoidance of Powell (and I believe West) among Crestwood residents for at least 15 years is pretty good empirical evidence of the neighborhood's ability to avoid schools that aren't liked.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When MacFarland was open, how many of your Crestwood neighbors chose MacFarland over Deal? That's likely the most empirical evidence here.

That is not valid empirical evidence because the MacFarland that will be reopened will have almost nothing in common with the MacFarland that closed (or at least one hopes). But, to answer the question, none went there. Similarly, almost the entire time that we have lived inbounds for Powell, no neighbors sent children there. That only started happening in the last couple of years. If we judged by the numbers during the time MacFarland was open, we would conclude that nobody in Crestwood would go to Powell. We know that is simply not true. Powell changed and we expect that MacFarland will also change.

BTW, the fact that there was 100% avoidance of Powell (and I believe West) among Crestwood residents for at least 15 years is pretty good empirical evidence of the neighborhood's ability to avoid schools that aren't liked.

Great response!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know other middle / high SES families from the neighborhood that are interested in MacFarland and not because of "complex circumstances". Pretty simply, I feel that our neighbors in Petworth are more of a community to us than people WOTP, and I want our kids to go to school in the community - at least through middle school. Sure, it needs to have a good environment and good academic offerings, but it doesn't need to be the same as Deal. Even Roosevelt has more academic offerings being put on the table. If the school environment can be shown to be better... well, ok - I'm focused on MS now.

That's encouraging to hear, and it gives me some hope for MacFarland. For those middle/high SES families who prefer the 2017-18 MacFarland, they presumably don't care about losing access to Deal, right? Is that a majority of families?

No, I don't think a majority. Probably not even close to half, but that's just a guess on my part.

And I wouldn't say I don't care about losing access to Deal. I think what we have now is best given the geography. We can focus on working on MacFarland, but if it looks like a real shitshow, then we still have our original alternative available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You live close to SP? Do you live in Lafayette bounds? You do know Lafayette has just as much a chance of getting cut as Shepherd right? Bowser has said over and over (and many other potential mayors that will succeed her), they will not cut off access to WOTP schools from EOTP kids.

No, I do not live WOTP. IMHO, if Mayor Bowser and others really stick by that supposed pledge, then their only alternative will be build another middle school WOTP. You're essentially describing a one-way-ratchet, which is foolish in this situation. "Read my lips: New new taxes." "You can keep your doctor." All politicians make bold promises. But good ones will break those promises and accept the fallout if it's best for society as a whole. Vincent Gray made the hard decision; Muriel Bowser made the easy one.