Question for Supporters of New WotP High School

[Anonymous]

Someone reach out to their PTA....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And while we all would certainly want the new and improved Roosevelt to launch overnight...we know that can't really happen. I think if DCPS did this right, it would have significant ramp-up time...(3 or 4 years...doesn't that seem right?)..with that sort of lead time, you can build interest, grandfather a reasonable amount of people/addresses in, etc.

I drove past the school the other day. The renovated building doesn't come online until Fall of 2015 and presumably it is going to be at less than 50% capacity at that point. So unless DCPS royally screws it up, there will be space for a significantly large enough cohort of students to begin our fantasy program in three years time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Mt P parent again - thanks for your reply. Probably there are many on DCUM who know where you live, because of previous posts that you have made, but I do not know where you live, so I can't reply to what you write with regard to your own neighborhood.

Regarding your first statement in bold: I'm going to ignore the real estate appraisal comment, but otherwise, yes, my logic is that there is no need to redraw boundaries so long as there are OOB students at a school, whether by feeder rights or other paths. In most school districts across the country OOB is only offered when a school is not full with IB students. It is a basic principle of fairness that you solve an over-crowding problem first by reducing or eliminating OOB and only then, if overcrowding remains, by reducing the geographical IB area. For example at the ES level, Janney is now full of IB students and thus it no longer accepts OOB. That's how it is supposed to operate. I don't see any proposals to shrink the Janney IB area in order to accept more OOB. Yet there are some, like the other poster on this thread who is posting proposed boundary maps, who would propose to carve Mt P out of Wilson and, presumably, allow OOB students from feeders to continue attending Wilson. This is unfair - shrinking boundaries should be a last resort. First, you reduce OOB.

What was offensive in your post is that you ask that you not be excluded from consideration given to Wilson families just because you don't live in Ward 3 - because you're basically the same demographic and income, just living in a different palce.

Jeff (along with many, many others) is also of that demographic and income level and lives in a million dollar neighborhood that's in hollering distance from Mt. P. Crestwood is EOTP and currently zoned for Wilson but the DME proposal cuts the feed to Deal Wilson.

If you're concerned about your place at Wilson due to overcrowsing, you should be supporting a viable HS option that's on par with Wilson. I don't think anyone feels that families would have to lose rights to Wilson if they went to a new Roosevelt. The ideal is that those near Roosevelt would have a school and that WOTP families might consider it as an alternative to Wilson (not forced from it).

What I wrote, if you go back and read it, was basically a request that everyone please stop using "Ward 3" as shorthand for "educated and affluent", as if these attributes are only located in Ward 3. I was surprised by Jeff's reaction so I went back to re-read the thread, and I now notice that the post which had prompted my comment was not written by Jeff but by someone responding to Jeff. And because of this mistake I had assumed that Jeff lives in Ward 3. Here is the post to which I was responding:

"I think implementation is the main difficulty. Essentially, you've got to steal enough Ward 3 families from Wilson in order to keep the academic standards at the new Roosevelt relatively high and to provide examples to other students who haven't developed the same scholastic habits. In order to keep that tap of students flowing, you need to create incentives for Ward 3 families to choose to send their kids there; for the most part, that means duplicating the entirety of Wilson's environment. The hardest part would be re-drawing the boundaries, initially, and being able to withstand the political push-back to make the boundaries stick. DCPS has a ton of money, so I don't think that would be the issue, in terms of funding the programs at the school."

So, my apologies for mis-reading the thread on that one - it wasn't Jeff. But I would appreciate it if people would stop making the mental shortcut evident in the post I've quoted here. I'll respond to Jeff in another post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Capturing" a certain portion of Ward 3 families is never going get us to the goal because they can afford (politically and financially) to not be captured. It's got to be some combination of nearby Ward 3, Ward 4 families, IB (as in int'l Bacc) focused families and other members of the "morning diaspora" that are currently traveling across the city to get to Wilson. There are plenty of students for at least two good high schools. We know this because Wilson is overflowing. How can we make it attractive enough to get the above group on board? Rather, can DCPS execute the plan we draw up?

INTL Bacc. for high school (I can ensure many Deal Families will want there, plus lots of highly educated families/kids who plan to stay in DC for 4-5 yrs then go back to their countries) +
Either test-in of DC Profiency track (sorry for using teh word track, make it sound better for your purposes)

Regarding the above comment, I do not agree. With the following 3 ingredients you could draw a lot of Ward 3 and ward 4 proficient students: 1) a well-designed program and 2) strong and credible commitment from DCPS, 3) Capable and open-minded Principal.

It took just an announcement to draw immediately a strong cohort of Ward 3 families to Basis (the same ones who you say can afford not to be captured).



Their alternative was Hardy, not Deal.

As shown on the interactive map on the other dcps thread, Janney Murch and Lafayette families aren't passing on deal to go to basis.

[Anonymous]

There have been at least two meetings for Ward 4 parents to discuss this very issue (MS and HS options). The first was back in February and brought out Abigail Smith. There was a Roosevelt parent at my table - still engaged and involved with the school daily, though his kids have graduated.

I don't recall the name of the group, and can't find it in my email, but Andy Rowe of the Powell parent group was there and seemed to have some involvement and may know how to reach parents.

[Anonymous]

Jeff mentioned that he shared the link for this thread with the Principal Mitchell. Maybe he would chime in (via Jeff or this thread) about how best to have this discussion with current Roosevelt stakeholders.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:There have been at least two meetings for Ward 4 parents to discuss this very issue (MS and HS options). The first was back in February and brought out Abigail Smith. There was a Roosevelt parent at my table - still engaged and involved with the school daily, though his kids have graduated.

I don't recall the name of the group, and can't find it in my email, but Andy Rowe of the Powell parent group was there and seemed to have some involvement and may know how to reach parents.

I think you are referring to the ForWard 4 meetings. I know several participants from those meetings and have been reaching out to people in order to help me contact Roosevelt stakeholders. But, so far, no luck. Maybe everyone is on Spring Break.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Mt P parent again - thanks for your reply. Probably there are many on DCUM who know where you live, because of previous posts that you have made, but I do not know where you live, so I can't reply to what you write with regard to your own neighborhood.

Regarding your first statement in bold: I'm going to ignore the real estate appraisal comment, but otherwise, yes, my logic is that there is no need to redraw boundaries so long as there are OOB students at a school, whether by feeder rights or other paths. In most school districts across the country OOB is only offered when a school is not full with IB students. It is a basic principle of fairness that you solve an over-crowding problem first by reducing or eliminating OOB and only then, if overcrowding remains, by reducing the geographical IB area. For example at the ES level, Janney is now full of IB students and thus it no longer accepts OOB. That's how it is supposed to operate. I don't see any proposals to shrink the Janney IB area in order to accept more OOB. Yet there are some, like the other poster on this thread who is posting proposed boundary maps, who would propose to carve Mt P out of Wilson and, presumably, allow OOB students from feeders to continue attending Wilson. This is unfair - shrinking boundaries should be a last resort. First, you reduce OOB.

Re: your second statement - again, I don't know where you live so I don't understand your comment - are you within the Roosevelt boundary proposed in the maps on this thread?

Re: your third statement in bold above, this doesn't make sense in the context of the proposals in this thread. The boundary maps in this thread show Mt P assigned to Roosevelt, so it would appear that if I help create Roosevelt, as proposed here, I likely will lose the Wilson access, right?

In general you seem overly optimistic about the prospects of this new school, but that's another discussion.

Attempting to resolve Wilson and Deal overcrowding simply by eliminating OOB feeder rights is just a version of the "fighting for a piece of the pie" scenario. You've got your piece of the pie, so let the OOB students eat cake. Don't be surprised when they start rolling out a metaphorical guillotine, a citywide high school lottery.

The boundary maps in this thread are the creation of one poster who is simply trying to advance the discussion and give us a framework for discussion. If you have a better idea for a map, please contribute it. I live in Crestwood which, like Mt. Pleasant, has long been zoned for Deal and Wilson. Crestwood has been included in the Roosevelt boundaries in the maps posted here. But, as I've said repeatedly, I would not send my children to a school that was not of equal or better quality than Wilson.

Incidentally, the DME's Proposal Example B shrinks Janney's boundaries and reserves 10% of the seats for OOB students. So, if you haven't seen such a proposal, please read Example B.

We don't know what, if anything, will happen to Roosevelt's boundaries. We are just brainstorming to see what possibilities exist to make Roosevelt an attractive alternative to an overcrowded Wilson. Two out of three of the DME's proposals call for citywide lotteries for high schools. So, maybe there won't be boundaries at all.

Of course optimism is required for this exercise. I know that you feel it is important to look out for your own interests. It is equally important to me to look out for my interests, just as it is for every other poster in this forum to look out for theirs. However, it is self-defeating if your fixation on protecting your piece of the Wilson pie results in something even worse. Do you want a citywide high school lottery? If so, then stand strong in your position that only a select few should be able to have access to Wilson while everyone else is left with unacceptable alternatives. I'd rather see additional high quality alternatives and this thread is aimed at exploring one possibility. There has been a lot of great input for which I am thankful. But, the few posters whose only interest is ensuring that they don't have to sacrifice in the slightest way are very short-sighted.

Jeff, thanks again for your willingness to engage on this, and sorry for my confusion earlier. Fair point on Option B and Janney.

I am pessimistic about the prospects of any as-of-right HS east of the park within the next 20 years. Whereas some on this thread seem optimistic even on a 5 year timeline. So some of this does come down to empirical predictions.

But there is also some principle at work here. For me the ability to buy a house in a school district is part of the bedrock of this country's values. It is the original and most fundamental version of "school choice". I am only recently learning that places like San Francisco have experimented with something radically different, with disastrous results.

A move to a city wide lottery would send a signal beyond education policy. It would indicate that Fenty was an outlier and DC is back to business as usual.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, thanks again for your willingness to engage on this, and sorry for my confusion earlier. Fair point on Option B and Janney.

I am pessimistic about the prospects of any as-of-right HS east of the park within the next 20 years. Whereas some on this thread seem optimistic even on a 5 year timeline. So some of this does come down to empirical predictions.

But there is also some principle at work here. For me the ability to buy a house in a school district is part of the bedrock of this country's values. It is the original and most fundamental version of "school choice". I am only recently learning that places like San Francisco have experimented with something radically different, with disastrous results.

A move to a city wide lottery would send a signal beyond education policy. It would indicate that Fenty was an outlier and DC is back to business as usual.

I am happy to talk or write about this subject as much as necessarily. I'm perfectly willing to seek victory through attrition

I don't know if a high-performing high school can be developed EotP in the near future and, if it can, what timeline would be required. Even if all parties involved came up with a plan upon which we all agreed -- unlikely in itself -- I have grave doubts about DCPS's ability to implement it.

There are only two things that seem for sure: 1) Wilson and Deal have current and increasing problems with overcrowding; and 2) Roosevelt is getting a $127 million renovation. That's not much of a foundation for a successful school, but all we are doing here is exploring the possibility.

I agree that the ability to buy a house within a particular school boundary is important. But, it is also important that large parts of our community are not shut out from opportunities for quality education. The only way I see to reconcile these two principles is to increase the number of opportunities for quality education.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, thanks again for your willingness to engage on this, and sorry for my confusion earlier. Fair point on Option B and Janney.

I am pessimistic about the prospects of any as-of-right HS east of the park within the next 20 years. Whereas some on this thread seem optimistic even on a 5 year timeline. So some of this does come down to empirical predictions.

But there is also some principle at work here. For me the ability to buy a house in a school district is part of the bedrock of this country's values. It is the original and most fundamental version of "school choice". I am only recently learning that places like San Francisco have experimented with something radically different, with disastrous results.

A move to a city wide lottery would send a signal beyond education policy. It would indicate that Fenty was an outlier and DC is back to business as usual.

I am happy to talk or write about this subject as much as necessarily. I'm perfectly willing to seek victory through attrition

I don't know if a high-performing high school can be developed EotP in the near future and, if it can, what timeline would be required. Even if all parties involved came up with a plan upon which we all agreed -- unlikely in itself -- I have grave doubts about DCPS's ability to implement it.

There are only two things that seem for sure: 1) Wilson and Deal have current and increasing problems with overcrowding; and 2) Roosevelt is getting a $127 million renovation. That's not much of a foundation for a successful school, but all we are doing here is exploring the possibility.

I agree that the ability to buy a house within a particular school boundary is important. But, it is also important that large parts of our community are not shut out from opportunities for quality education. The only way I see to reconcile these two principles is to increase the number of opportunities for quality education.

Mt P parent here again, ok, I see what I am up against here in terms of forum posting - this must be what loss by attrition feels like

Seriously, I'll leave it here, and respect your earlier request that this thread be focused on suggestions for Roosevelt. Despite my pessimism I'd be excited to see something great done with Roosevelt, especially when so much has been or will be spent on physical renovation. No downside there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The number of students enrolled in DCPS or charters near Roosevelt is exponentially larger than that near a Western High School. Which makes more sense to develop?

With the exception of Haynes and the DCI feeders*, many of the new charters don't have middle or high school options, and there's a huge crush to get into latin, basis, or sww. What about a new charter high school near Walter Reed that would feed from CM, IT, 2R, etc as well as be open to citywide lottery?

Because DCI already got Walter Reed. The idea is to get HSs (whether DCPS or charter) located within more than one corner of the city. Co-locating a charter HS at Dunbar or Eastern might work. Both schools are newly renovated, both want to be ambitious, both aren't far from metro, and neither is at capacity.


(*Don't forget Cap City - which also has a HS)

[Anonymous]

Things can change way faster than what people think.

If I just think back to the start of my days as a dcps parent...our elementary school was ok, Deal was iffy academically, tough behavior-wise and falling apart, Wilson was kind of rough with the only solid tracks through the academies. Wilson was also nowhere near their renovation.

When my oldest started kindergarten, we were in the "one year at a time" phase thinking that we would definitely have to look into different (move ot MoCo, private) options for MS, let alone HS.

Fast forward to today-our kids are all still in DCPS-never even toured a private- and all three schools are great. All solid academically, safe/respectful environments (yes, there are still teenagers there-so stuff happens), great peer groups, lots of opportunites and Deal and Wilson have great new facilities.

Here's the crazy part...my kid is only a freshman at Wilson! Somewhere in the last 5 years or so, my thinking has completely changed. It really only took Melissa Kim a few years and a great renovation to push Deal onto this trajectory. Same with Wilson, remember the year that the renovation was finished (2011-2012) and loads of IB kids showed up at Wilson from privates and charters? Unexpectedly over enrolling the school. Three years ago.

A carefully planned Roosevelt could surely see this type of positive momentum. Families with kids are more numerous, parents want a good public option. I hate to use teh cliche but I do think that if it gets build (physically and programatically), the kids will come.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I have only read the last 4 pages of this thread, but what is clear to me is that a focused program on helping kids with drive and some capacity EOTP starting in early grades would grow the pie of capable kids to make several strong middle and high schools. There are a lot more of these kids out there than we appreciate. Yes this takes time, but even 5 or so years of supports could build a solid cohort. Problem is that the district has never focused on this cohort. NCLB has meant that resources have focus on pulling the kids at the 30-50th percentile and try and pull them to proficient. If you were proficient, here read a book, while I work with this group. I know kids from pretty dire economic circumstances now at wilson that take 3-4 buses some days to get to school that are going to to go to some excellent colleges because adults at Hardy made sure they got tutoring where needed and a few summer scholarships. This is where the pie needs to be expanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, thanks again for your willingness to engage on this, and sorry for my confusion earlier. Fair point on Option B and Janney.

I am pessimistic about the prospects of any as-of-right HS east of the park within the next 20 years. Whereas some on this thread seem optimistic even on a 5 year timeline. So some of this does come down to empirical predictions.

But there is also some principle at work here. For me the ability to buy a house in a school district is part of the bedrock of this country's values. It is the original and most fundamental version of "school choice". I am only recently learning that places like San Francisco have experimented with something radically different, with disastrous results.

A move to a city wide lottery would send a signal beyond education policy. It would indicate that Fenty was an outlier and DC is back to business as usual.

I am happy to talk or write about this subject as much as necessarily. I'm perfectly willing to seek victory through attrition

I don't know if a high-performing high school can be developed EotP in the near future and, if it can, what timeline would be required. Even if all parties involved came up with a plan upon which we all agreed -- unlikely in itself -- I have grave doubts about DCPS's ability to implement it.

There are only two things that seem for sure: 1) Wilson and Deal have current and increasing problems with overcrowding; and 2) Roosevelt is getting a $127 million renovation. That's not much of a foundation for a successful school, but all we are doing here is exploring the possibility.

I agree that the ability to buy a house within a particular school boundary is important. But, it is also important that large parts of our community are not shut out from opportunities for quality education. The only way I see to reconcile these two principles is to increase the number of opportunities for quality education.

Mt P parent here again, ok, I see what I am up against here in terms of forum posting - this must be what loss by attrition feels like

Seriously, I'll leave it here, and respect your earlier request that this thread be focused on suggestions for Roosevelt. Despite my pessimism I'd be excited to see something great done with Roosevelt, especially when so much has been or will be spent on physical renovation. No downside there.

Enough! Geeze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The number of students enrolled in DCPS or charters near Roosevelt is exponentially larger than that near a Western High School. Which makes more sense to develop?

With the exception of Haynes and the DCI feeders*, many of the new charters don't have middle or high school options, and there's a huge crush to get into latin, basis, or sww. What about a new charter high school near Walter Reed that would feed from CM, IT, 2R, etc as well as be open to citywide lottery?

Because DCI already got Walter Reed. The idea is to get HSs (whether DCPS or charter) located within more than one corner of the city. Co-locating a charter HS at Dunbar or Eastern might work. Both schools are newly renovated, both want to be ambitious, both aren't far from metro, and neither is at capacity.


(*Don't forget Cap City - which also has a HS)

I personally would like to see a DCPS middle school, high school or both at Walter reed. The property is certainly big enough to accommodate both DCI and DCPS. Was the DCI property out on hold because the funding fell through (based on a legal reading)? Is it back on again?