Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I really wonder where a lot of these posters live, who are talking about "over-crowding" and offering purportedly well-meaning proposals of new MSs and HSs for those of us living in wards other than 3. I suspect many live in Ward 3, and thus would never be required to attend these brave new schools that they are proposing. But I can't know, because they don't disclose it.

I live in Ward 4 and also posted 18:47 above.
My bias is that I don't want to send my kid to Deal or Wilson, but that means we need better options EOTP.

Bancroft parent here, that's great, but it should be a voluntary process and an additive process (to borrow from Catania's lingo). I don't work for Catania but he sums it up best: no-one should be forced into a worse alternative than what they have today.

I don't know which posts you authored so this may not be responding to you, more to the posters who say hey, let's move the Deal/Wilson boundaries west to Rock Creek Parkway, that will solve it.

16:47 again (not who you're responding to here). I appreciate the inclusive nature of an "additive" process, but it just won't work here IMHO. Few families will volunteer to pioneer a new EotP school. Most will just continue to fight like hell to get access to WotP schools, and will only switch after other families have put in lots of sweat equity to build the EotP schools. In essence, too many will free-ride.

I know it's incredibly unpopular, but I think the only way DCPS will get a new school to thrive will be to force strong communities to attend the school. To me, the strong communities poised to build such a school are will have committed parents, above-average income, and lots of racial diversity. The EotP neighborhoods like Mt Pleasant, 16th St Heights, Petworth, etc are the right ones to build a strong set of elementary/middle/high schools in their neighborhood. Again, I know it's unpopular, but I think they need to be pushed out of the Deal/Wilson nest, so they will fly. I also think those neighborhoods could get tons of extra support from DCPS if they volunteer to be zoned out of Deal/Wilson. They could get almost all the elements they want.

practicalExcept that if the student body becomes significantly whiter as a result, then you will have a Civil Rights lawsuit over disparate impact. And DCPS will lose. Again. (For those not in the know, that's EXACTLY what happened the last time DCPS lost a lawsuit because Wilson and Deal were too white.)

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wash%20Post%20Articles%20on%20Zone%20Changes%20131026.pdf

What would be the disparate impact if DCPS were to make the quality and programming variety of an EOTP school the equivalent of Deal/Wilson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I really wonder where a lot of these posters live, who are talking about "over-crowding" and offering purportedly well-meaning proposals of new MSs and HSs for those of us living in wards other than 3. I suspect many live in Ward 3, and thus would never be required to attend these brave new schools that they are proposing. But I can't know, because they don't disclose it.

I live in Ward 4 and also posted 18:47 above.

My bias is that I don't want to send my kid to Deal or Wilson, but that means we need better options EOTP.

And there is urgency in figuring this out because it takes time to change or create a school that will be an attractive alternative to Ward 3.

Bancroft parent here, that's great, but it should be a voluntary process and an additive process (to borrow from Catania's lingo). I don't work for Catania but he sums it up best: no-one should be forced into a worse alternative than what they have today.

I don't know which posts you authored so this may not be responding to you, more to the posters who say hey, let's move the Deal/Wilson boundaries west to Rock Creek Parkway, that will solve it.

If there are families EOTP like yours, zoned for Deal or not, that prefer to attend middle school EOTP, then those families should start meeting once a month over a bottle of wine (in person; nothing will ever get accomplished on DCUM!) and discussing which existing or new school they want to attend, and then work on it. Who knows, maybe it will become the most sought after school, as Jeff suggests, and we'll all be trying to get in OOB.

Shepherd parent here. It can't be voluntary because no one is going to be the first to offer their child as an experiment. There needs to be a significantly large cohort of mid to high SES families to make a new school work, and we can't get to that number by asking for volunteers to jump from the comfortable Deal/Wilson nest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I really wonder where a lot of these posters live, who are talking about "over-crowding" and offering purportedly well-meaning proposals of new MSs and HSs for those of us living in wards other than 3. I suspect many live in Ward 3, and thus would never be required to attend these brave new schools that they are proposing. But I can't know, because they don't disclose it.

I live in Ward 4 and also posted 18:47 above.
My bias is that I don't want to send my kid to Deal or Wilson, but that means we need better options EOTP.

Bancroft parent here, that's great, but it should be a voluntary process and an additive process (to borrow from Catania's lingo). I don't work for Catania but he sums it up best: no-one should be forced into a worse alternative than what they have today.

I don't know which posts you authored so this may not be responding to you, more to the posters who say hey, let's move the Deal/Wilson boundaries west to Rock Creek Parkway, that will solve it.

16:47 again (not who you're responding to here). I appreciate the inclusive nature of an "additive" process, but it just won't work here IMHO. Few families will volunteer to pioneer a new EotP school. Most will just continue to fight like hell to get access to WotP schools, and will only switch after other families have put in lots of sweat equity to build the EotP schools. In essence, too many will free-ride.

I know it's incredibly unpopular, but I think the only way DCPS will get a new school to thrive will be to force strong communities to attend the school. To me, the strong communities poised to build such a school are will have committed parents, above-average income, and lots of racial diversity. The EotP neighborhoods like Mt Pleasant, 16th St Heights, Petworth, etc are the right ones to build a strong set of elementary/middle/high schools in their neighborhood. Again, I know it's unpopular, but I think they need to be pushed out of the Deal/Wilson nest, so they will fly. I also think those neighborhoods could get tons of extra support from DCPS if they volunteer to be zoned out of Deal/Wilson. They could get almost all the elements they want.

practicalExcept that if the student body becomes significantly whiter as a result, then you will have a Civil Rights lawsuit over disparate impact. And DCPS will lose. Again. (For those not in the know, that's EXACTLY what happened the last time DCPS lost a lawsuit because Wilson and Deal were too white.)

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wash%20Post%20Articles%20on%20Zone%20Changes%20131026.pdf

What would be the disparate impact if DCPS were to make the quality and programming variety of an EOTP school the equivalent of Deal/Wilson?

The whole city would be delighted. Show us the proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Bancroft parent wrote:I really wonder where a lot of these posters live, who are talking about "over-crowding" and offering purportedly well-meaning proposals of new MSs and HSs for those of us living in wards other than 3. I suspect many live in Ward 3, and thus would never be required to attend these brave new schools that they are proposing. But I can't know, because they don't disclose it.

I'm 16:47, who asked you why you would not consider any EotP schools for your children. Since you are concerned about bias, I'll disclose that I am not Ward 3, and I'm not even in bounds for Deal, Hardy, or Wilson. I am well EotP, and the only way my children could attend one of those schools is via some sort of OOB lottery opportunity.

I find it frustrating and unfair that you paint all Ward 3 parents as if they were trying to achieve a "lily white" school, and yet you paint your motives as pure and only merits-based. I'd bet 99% of those Ward 3 parents want just the same things you do -- quality schools -- and they don't care about the race issues you raise. You accuse them of "red lining" based solely on the disparate racial impact you claim will arise if your own neighborhood is denied access. But when you explain why you're rejecting your own neighborhood schools, it seems you could be accused of red-lining yourself. I'm not laying that accusation on you, because I give you the benefit of the doubt. But I think you owe that same benefit of the doubt to people who live in other neighborhoods.

If you want any of these discussions to move us all forward, you need to stop the unfair attacks on people who disagree with you.

Bancroft parent here - I was not the poster who used terms like "lilly white" and I never attacked anyone. I did explain red-lining, because it is apparently a blind spot for many on DCUM. My point was, drop that proposal because it will never fly. I was not imputing racist motives, just pointing out how the courts would see it. I realize it could have been misinterpreted though, so my apologies for that.

Regarding the phrase in bold, Deal and Wilson are the neighborhood schools for Mount Pleasant, and Bancroft has fed to Deal for decades. Somewhere along the way, this insidious habit crept in to refer to Deal and Wilson as "WOTP schools", as if all of us EOTP are some how OOB for those schools. I am not rejecting any neighborhood schools, rather, I am saying that we should be able to keep our neighborhood schools.

Only governments and companies that provide goods and services can redline, but I am interpreting this as you saying that I don't want to attend schools that are mostly composed of racial minorities. Is that what you are getting at?

I gave you a long list of explicit criteria, some of which have no relation to race, and others which are race-neutral in substance, but yes, highly correlated with race in Washington DC. But, if I were so opposed to attending racially diverse schools, why would I send my kids to Bancroft, with its 80% latino and black combined, and 70% FARMs? Why would I want to go to Wilson with its 45% African-American population? Obviously, I am comfortable with schools where whites are the minority. But I am not comfortable with poor-quality schools and will oppose any attempt to worsen education quality for our neighborhood and its families.

I thought the map in the "1950s" thread was fascinating specifically because it showed the Crestwood/Mt. Pleasant neighborhoods squarely in the Roosevelt boundary.

[Anonymous]

I thought what was interesting is that this battle has been fought before, all the way to the Supreme Court. The result is that Wilson is not allowed to be a "white" "haven" - and neither is Deal.

So, if the school(s) gets too full, it doesn't get to kick out the AA or Latino students.

Looking at the map, that means Hardy needs a new HS. Otoh, I could be reading too much into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I thought the map in the "1950s" thread was fascinating specifically because it showed the Crestwood/Mt. Pleasant neighborhoods squarely in the Roosevelt boundary.

They were actually made "optional zones" where students could choose to attend Western; Crestwood was later given the option of Wilson. The assistant superintendent admitted in his Hobson v. Hansen testimony that this was done so white students in these neighborhoods could choose to attend predominantly white schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except that if the student body becomes significantly whiter as a result, then you will have a Civil Rights lawsuit over disparate impact. And DCPS will lose. Again. (For those not in the know, that's EXACTLY what happened the last time DCPS lost a lawsuit because Wilson and Deal were too white.)
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme...%20Zone%20Changes%20131026.pdf

Let me make sure I understand you. You first argue that if any change increases the percentage of white students at Deal/Wilson, then DCPS will lose a civil rights action. Then you argue that if any change increases the percentage of white students at an EotP school, that too will result in a civil rights lawsuit. So in essence, you think no change can occur which will alter the current racial balance at any school???

Not to mention the case in the 1960's had very little to do with Wilson and Deal being "too white". It was mainly about tracking and the predominantly black schools being in overcrowded, substandard facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought what was interesting is that this battle has been fought before, all the way to the Supreme Court. The result is that Wilson is not allowed to be a "white" "haven" - and neither is Deal.

So, if the school(s) gets too full, it doesn't get to kick out the AA or Latino students.

Looking at the map, that means Hardy needs a new HS. Otoh, I could be reading too much into it.

Except Hardy is 80% AA/Hispanic and is the biggest feeder of AA/Hispanic kids to Wilson. So try a different plan here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought what was interesting is that this battle has been fought before, all the way to the Supreme Court. The result is that Wilson is not allowed to be a "white" "haven" - and neither is Deal.

So, if the school(s) gets too full, it doesn't get to kick out the AA or Latino students.

Looking at the map, that means Hardy needs a new HS. Otoh, I could be reading too much into it.

Except Hardy is 80% AA/Hispanic and is the biggest feeder of AA/Hispanic kids to Wilson. So try a different plan here.

Also, yes first poster, you are reading too much into it. Nothing says that AA or Latino students are sacrosanct.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But in the meantime, we want to go to Deal and, more important than our own family's preferences, there are broader moral, political and legal issues with which to contend, which I explained above.

I am surprised at how often "broader moral, political and legal issues" coincide with our own family's preferences. An amazing number of DCUM posters are strongly committed to a host of ethical principles which -- purely coincidentally, mind you -- support their personal preferences. I'm not claiming to be completely innocent of this myself and I'll concede that opposing red lining is an easier sell than touting the purchase of expensive real estate as a justification. But, regardless of the justice of your cause, this is simply one more fight over pieces of the same pie.

The idea of adding a Ward 2 or 3 high school is at least an attempt to increase the size of the pie. My issue with it is that it may not be the optimal method of achieving that goal. My preference is to look at expanding EotP opportunities. I can foresee a day when high-performing, ethnically and socio-economicly diverse EotP schools are considered preferable to homogeneous WotP schools. That day is not tomorrow and certainly communities cannot be abandoned during the transition, but the day may not be that far off either.

The corollary is how often it just happens to coincide with a poster's family preference when a claim is made that a certain change would be politically impossible, political suicide, DOA, touching the third rail, illegal, violating the Constitution, violating the Home Rule Charter or all of the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But in the meantime, we want to go to Deal and, more important than our own family's preferences, there are broader moral, political and legal issues with which to contend, which I explained above.

I am surprised at how often "broader moral, political and legal issues" coincide with our own family's preferences. An amazing number of DCUM posters are strongly committed to a host of ethical principles which -- purely coincidentally, mind you -- support their personal preferences. I'm not claiming to be completely innocent of this myself and I'll concede that opposing red lining is an easier sell than touting the purchase of expensive real estate as a justification. But, regardless of the justice of your cause, this is simply one more fight over pieces of the same pie.

The idea of adding a Ward 2 or 3 high school is at least an attempt to increase the size of the pie. My issue with it is that it may not be the optimal method of achieving that goal. My preference is to look at expanding EotP opportunities. I can foresee a day when high-performing, ethnically and socio-economicly diverse EotP schools are considered preferable to homogeneous WotP schools. That day is not tomorrow and certainly communities cannot be abandoned during the transition, but the day may not be that far off either.

The corollary is how often it just happens to coincide with a poster's family preference when a claim is made that a certain change would be politically impossible, political suicide, DOA, touching the third rail, illegal, violating the Constitution, violating the Home Rule Charter or all of the above.

My family is totally and completely unaffected by any of the outcomes, which makes it easier to apply an unbiased eye.

It looks like there are two chokepoints, Deal and Wilson. The feeders need to be adjusted for both.

First, Eaton and Oyster need to be eliminated from Deal. Eaton is closer to Hardy, so that's easy. Oyster has Adams, so that's easy. For those at Oyster that don't want SI, they can go to Hardy, which is much closer.

Next, the eastern borders of the Deal catchment need to be rationalized so that they don't zig-zag through different elementaries. Keep Shepherd, there's no other MS for that school, it has always been a good combination of IB and diversity. Divest Bancroft. It's an SI school, those students have other SI options EotP. Send them to Adams or Chec and let Adams feed Chec as well. Whatever portions of Powell are IB for Deal should also be divested. Same as Bancroft: Adams or Chec.

Next, can the rationalized Deal and Hardy both fit into Wilson? If yes, no problem. However, the unholy marriage of Francis Stevens to SWW (or whatever that hot mess is supposed to be) doesn't. That ego driven institution needs to be removed from the mix. Eastern or Cardozo are the logical choices. The previously mentioned Adams is east of the park and logically goes to Chec or Cardozo.

You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

Except CHEC is an application school for high. They'd be lucky to get Adams kids, but that model will need to change

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
My family is totally and completely unaffected by any of the outcomes, which makes it easier to apply an unbiased eye.

It looks like there are two chokepoints, Deal and Wilson. The feeders need to be adjusted for both.

First, Eaton and Oyster need to be eliminated from Deal. Eaton is closer to Hardy, so that's easy. Oyster has Adams, so that's easy. For those at Oyster that don't want SI, they can go to Hardy, which is much closer.

Next, the eastern borders of the Deal catchment need to be rationalized so that they don't zig-zag through different elementaries. Keep Shepherd, there's no other MS for that school, it has always been a good combination of IB and diversity. Divest Bancroft. It's an SI school, those students have other SI options EotP. Send them to Adams or Chec and let Adams feed Chec as well. Whatever portions of Powell are IB for Deal should also be divested. Same as Bancroft: Adams or Chec.

Next, can the rationalized Deal and Hardy both fit into Wilson? If yes, no problem. However, the unholy marriage of Francis Stevens to SWW (or whatever that hot mess is supposed to be) doesn't. That ego driven institution needs to be removed from the mix. Eastern or Cardozo are the logical choices. The previously mentioned Adams is east of the park and logically goes to Chec or Cardozo.

You're welcome.

There are some thoughtful ideas here. The primary issue I have are the cases in which boundaries are being switched to lower-performing schools. There seems to be a belief among many posters in this thread -- not necessarily you -- that if DCPS simply draws a line on the map, parents will meekly adhere to the new boundaries. In fact, if parents are not happy with the new school assignments, they will seek alternatives such as charters, private, or moving. I stand firmly on the principle that no student should be unwillingly assigned to a lower performing school. Similarly, I hold that no plan should be promoted that will like lead to an outflow of students from DCPS. The solution is to wed the ideas you have above to a plan for increasing the performance of the new destination schools and a transition plan for the interim. We need to get beyond solutions which have winners and losers and get to solutions that have winners and winners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except CHEC is an application school for high. They'd be lucky to get Adams kids, but that model will need to change

Do the kids go to Cardozo instead? This is all too much.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My family is totally and completely unaffected by any of the outcomes, which makes it easier to apply an unbiased eye.

It looks like there are two chokepoints, Deal and Wilson. The feeders need to be adjusted for both.

First, Eaton and Oyster need to be eliminated from Deal. Eaton is closer to Hardy, so that's easy. Oyster has Adams, so that's easy. For those at Oyster that don't want SI, they can go to Hardy, which is much closer.

Next, the eastern borders of the Deal catchment need to be rationalized so that they don't zig-zag through different elementaries. Keep Shepherd, there's no other MS for that school, it has always been a good combination of IB and diversity. Divest Bancroft. It's an SI school, those students have other SI options EotP. Send them to Adams or Chec and let Adams feed Chec as well. Whatever portions of Powell are IB for Deal should also be divested. Same as Bancroft: Adams or Chec.

Next, can the rationalized Deal and Hardy both fit into Wilson? If yes, no problem. However, the unholy marriage of Francis Stevens to SWW (or whatever that hot mess is supposed to be) doesn't. That ego driven institution needs to be removed from the mix. Eastern or Cardozo are the logical choices. The previously mentioned Adams is east of the park and logically goes to Chec or Cardozo.

You're welcome.

There are some thoughtful ideas here. The primary issue I have are the cases in which boundaries are being switched to lower-performing schools. There seems to be a belief among many posters in this thread -- not necessarily you -- that if DCPS simply draws a line on the map, parents will meekly adhere to the new boundaries. In fact, if parents are not happy with the new school assignments, they will seek alternatives such as charters, private, or moving. I stand firmly on the principle that no student should be unwillingly assigned to a lower performing school. Similarly, I hold that no plan should be promoted that will like lead to an outflow of students from DCPS. The solution is to wed the ideas you have above to a plan for increasing the performance of the new destination schools and a transition plan for the interim. We need to get beyond solutions which have winners and losers and get to solutions that have winners and winners.

Thank you for this response. It was far more kind and diplomatic than the one boiling inside of me.