Proposal is up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The changing of Eastern feeder pattern is not highly controversial. It just makes more sense in some form by making Jefferson exclusively Eastern and taking the neighborhood of Kelly Miller students out of the mix. Now the questions still remains, how can DCPS ignore one of the largest middle schools of them all and that is Friendship MS. We constantly say that we are all one school system but the majority of Eastern eligible feeder students attend the second largest middle school in comparison to Deal. Friendship MS is located in Ward 6 neighborhood close to Eastern but many of those kids are shuffled off to Friendship HS in Ward 7. I will say it on this post too, where do the students from Browne Educational go to school when all is seemingly neighborhood generated...Spingarn is no longer available.


History note: Eastern used to have the following feeder schools:
Eliot
Browne
Sousa
Jefferson
Hine
Evans
Kelly Miller
Roper (Ron Brown)
Fletcher-Johnson
Stuart-Hobson
Woodson Jr

So the inventory of feeder schools have dwindled down from 11 to 3 but Eastern is still projected to be the second largest high-school next year.

Oh who bloody cares. I'll be surprised if a single kid from my child's DCPS Hill early childhood program (which is almost entirely high SES for PreK3, PreK4 and K, and white) ended up at Eastern (which is almost entirely low SES and AA). You'd need a generation to turn things around at this rate, not a mere decade.

It didn't take a generation for that to happen at Deal. Why not join up with your neighbors and make it happen sooner?

I still have trouble understanding exactly what the Hill families are looking for.

Imagine that Janney, Murch and the other Deal feeders each fed to a separate, underenrolled middle school along with elementary schools that were still struggling to graduate a majority of students who are on grade level academically.

Deal would not happen under those circumstances.

That is the way it is purposefully set up by DCPS on Capitol Hill, but in an even smaller geographic area than the Deal feeder system.

It is insanity not to concentrate these elementary schools to feed into a comprehensive Capitol Hill Middle School with enough per pupil funding to serve all ends of the academic spectrum. Then into Eastern that is poised and ready with an IB Diplomae program already as well as some great vocational programs.

Why can't someone with a brain see the potential of all these schools feeding to one middle school rather than three that then end up serving all out of zone students?

I am a ward 3 parent and I have to agree that continuing the unsuccessful middle schools feeder patterns on CH is the most boneheaded plan ever. I have never understood what the politics are that prohibit affirmatively bringing successful children together to create another Deal-like middle school. Who objects to this? Who thinks the current plan is working?

(1) CHPSPO
(2) The Cluster PTA

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My IB schools will be MacFarland and Roosevelt...I could be crazy and could ultimately be worn down by the bueacracy, but I'm actually kind of excited at the prospect of those as new schools. I really, really, really hope that DCPS builds programs there that would attract the high-SES families who are moving into Petworth and 16 Street Heights. My kids are still young enough that MacFarland and Roosevelt could be renovated and reopened as attractive programs. Unfortunately, I'm not thrilled with the plan that Roosevelt will have a world language focus, since our IB elementary school doesn't offer much of anything beyond having a teaching assistant who is Spanish speaking and the limited "world language" requirement set in place by DCPS last year. Wish/hope there will be a shift to STEM or simply a strong commitment to creating lots of advanced classes.

It's just an international focus, not international language. It's still meant to be a comprehensive, neighborhood high school with opt-in specialized programming, including language instruction.

I'm excited about it, too. But it needs a strong middle school to feed it.

You should join the Ward 4 Education Alliance where parents are working to put together a proposal for programmatic offering at the new MacFarland. I know many, if not most of the parents still have kids in the very early grades, with hopes that it will be up and running within the next five years.

Thanks, PP! I will definitely get involved. What does "international focus" mean?

It means they put the word "International" in front of everything to make it sound like a much better program, when in fact it's the same old, same old.

Again, plans for MacFarland and Roosevelt are in very early stages. These schools can potentially be anything the community wants them to be. If the community wants them to be nothing more than subjects of complaints, they can easily be that. But, we have the opportunity to help create exciting programs. In my opinion, the "international" focus was a case of making lemonade from lemons. Roosevelt already has a student body made up of many nationalities. So, why not capitalize on that? What "international" ends up meaning down the road is really what we want it to mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the percentage of Crestwood families who actually send their children to Deal. It is my perception that most send their children to privates and maybe some charters. It also seems that those who do attend DCPS would be more likely to attend Shepherd than West. Might this be why Crestwood was given the boot as opposed to MP?

I don't have rough numbers but my guess based only on anecdotal evidence and experience is that the percentage is not radically different between Crestwood and Mt. Pleasant -- though I expect Mt. Pleasant has significantly more kids. But, Crestwood got booted because Crestwood's elementary schools -- Powell and West -- unlike Bancroft and Shepherd, are not Deal feeders. Also, the Advisory Committee hopes to establish high-performing programs at MacFarland and Roosevelt. Crestwood's 16th St. boundary is only 2 or 3 (depending how you count) blocks from 13th Street where Roosevelt is located (MacFarland is just behind it in the same block). I can see the sense in the proposal, but the problem is the transition. If MacFarland and Roosevelt can be brought up close to Deal/Wilson levels, everyone wins. That's a big "if". DCPS can ease a lot of minds by dispatching several Brinks trucks full of cash aimed at creating top notch programs at those schools. But, nobody expects that to happen.

I doubt that we can marshal the same resources that DC budget can, but we can do what we can. Why not move now to start "Friends of" groups for MacFarland, and the new Ward 4, 7, and Center City middle schools (and others if I have forgotten places) to start to build resources for their kick-off. Done over several years they could give the school a little more breathing room as it struggles in the first few years of opening, and if successful at raising funds, would reassure parents that the community is investing. Quite a number of folks on this site have expressed interest in helping schools across the city. This could be their chance. (In fact, I am one of those parents.)

That sounds like work. I'd much rather gripe on DCUM. Actually, it's a fantastic idea. I will suggest it to my neighbors.

So DC parents should be the ones to fund the better quality schools? Let's just totally let DCPS off the hook! Since DME and DCPS do not work together then all these changes can be made and, as usual, NO ONE will have responsibility over the end result and they'll say, "well why didn't the parents do more. "

Nope, the city needs to step up if you want our kids to feed to these schools.

No, DCPS should not be let off the hook - nor should parents sit back and wait for DCPS to do something smart, then gripe when they don't. If parents hadn't spoken up during the boundary talks, we'd be stuck with choice sets or "lottery for all" high schools or any old thing that sounded innovative and exciting to DME, who thought families were more willing to travel for "choice" than to press for good neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the percentage of Crestwood families who actually send their children to Deal. It is my perception that most send their children to privates and maybe some charters. It also seems that those who do attend DCPS would be more likely to attend Shepherd than West. Might this be why Crestwood was given the boot as opposed to MP?

I don't have rough numbers but my guess based only on anecdotal evidence and experience is that the percentage is not radically different between Crestwood and Mt. Pleasant -- though I expect Mt. Pleasant has significantly more kids. But, Crestwood got booted because Crestwood's elementary schools -- Powell and West -- unlike Bancroft and Shepherd, are not Deal feeders. Also, the Advisory Committee hopes to establish high-performing programs at MacFarland and Roosevelt. Crestwood's 16th St. boundary is only 2 or 3 (depending how you count) blocks from 13th Street where Roosevelt is located (MacFarland is just behind it in the same block). I can see the sense in the proposal, but the problem is the transition. If MacFarland and Roosevelt can be brought up close to Deal/Wilson levels, everyone wins. That's a big "if". DCPS can ease a lot of minds by dispatching several Brinks trucks full of cash aimed at creating top notch programs at those schools. But, nobody expects that to happen.

I can't speak to Crestwood kids' attendance - harder to say because the neighborhood boundaries do not line up with any one elementary school boundary, in contrast to Mt Pleasant which lines up with Bancroft almost completely.

The majority of Bancroft graduates attend Deal, and almost all of those graduates in recent years have been low income and latino. Unlike Crestwood, Mt Pleasant has a significant low-income population. This is clear from the data in the DME materials, which you can consult in the sticky thread, and DCPS data. You can also see in the DME individual school documents how many public school children in boundary.

I am less sure about the Mt Pleasant kids who do not attend Bancroft, although my understanding is that many of them do attend Deal after whatever ES option they choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^I kind of agree. After all, the plans for McFarland are so sketchy. I would not be willing to give my time to organizing and fundraising for a future school with no concrete plans.

Hugely successful sought-after charter started that way-- I did volunteer even before it opened. If you are in-bounds why wouldn't you do it? You could go as a matter of right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The changing of Eastern feeder pattern is not highly controversial. It just makes more sense in some form by making Jefferson exclusively Eastern and taking the neighborhood of Kelly Miller students out of the mix. Now the questions still remains, how can DCPS ignore one of the largest middle schools of them all and that is Friendship MS. We constantly say that we are all one school system but the majority of Eastern eligible feeder students attend the second largest middle school in comparison to Deal. Friendship MS is located in Ward 6 neighborhood close to Eastern but many of those kids are shuffled off to Friendship HS in Ward 7. I will say it on this post too, where do the students from Browne Educational go to school when all is seemingly neighborhood generated...Spingarn is no longer available.


History note: Eastern used to have the following feeder schools:
Eliot
Browne
Sousa
Jefferson
Hine
Evans
Kelly Miller
Roper (Ron Brown)
Fletcher-Johnson
Stuart-Hobson
Woodson Jr

So the inventory of feeder schools have dwindled down from 11 to 3 but Eastern is still projected to be the second largest high-school next year.

Oh who bloody cares. I'll be surprised if a single kid from my child's DCPS Hill early childhood program (which is almost entirely high SES for PreK3, PreK4 and K, and white) ended up at Eastern (which is almost entirely low SES and AA). You'd need a generation to turn things around at this rate, not a mere decade.

It didn't take a generation for that to happen at Deal. Why not join up with your neighbors and make it happen sooner?

I still have trouble understanding exactly what the Hill families are looking for.

Imagine that Janney, Murch and the other Deal feeders each fed to a separate, underenrolled middle school along with elementary schools that were still struggling to graduate a majority of students who are on grade level academically.

Deal would not happen under those circumstances.

That is the way it is purposefully set up by DCPS on Capitol Hill, but in an even smaller geographic area than the Deal feeder system.

It is insanity not to concentrate these elementary schools to feed into a comprehensive Capitol Hill Middle School with enough per pupil funding to serve all ends of the academic spectrum. Then into Eastern that is poised and ready with an IB Diplomae program already as well as some great vocational programs.

Why can't someone with a brain see the potential of all these schools feeding to one middle school rather than three that then end up serving all out of zone students?

I am a ward 3 parent and I have to agree that continuing the unsuccessful middle schools feeder patterns on CH is the most boneheaded plan ever. I have never understood what the politics are that prohibit affirmatively bringing successful children together to create another Deal-like middle school. Who objects to this? Who thinks the current plan is working?

(1) CHPSPO
(2) The Cluster PTA

Since CHPSPO is led by former Cluster PTA people, they are really the same force.

It is hard to fathom but this force which used to be the center of getting a good education on Capitol Hill is now the biggest impediment both idea logically and physically ( if you look at the map of middle school feeder patterns where the cluster cuts a pink swathe right down the middle of the neighborhood and funnels that long , thin swath into Stuart Hobson)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It means they put the word "International" in front of everything to make it sound like a much better program, when in fact it's the same old, same old.

This would be DCPS's natural inclination, but I think the community is becoming aware of the opportunity and will not that happen.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^I kind of agree. After all, the plans for McFarland are so sketchy. I would not be willing to give my time to organizing and fundraising for a future school with no concrete plans.

The Ward 4 Education Alliance - http://ward4ed.org - is working to help develop plans. Obviously, at the moment, DME and DCPS are not on the same page. The first step is to get them together. Like the poster above, I find the opportunity to help build two high-performing schools to be exciting. But, today is not the day to get pulled out of Deal and Wilson (and, luckily, that is not happening). We are very early in the process. DCPS has not even agreed to reopen MacFarland, let alone found funding for it. We need to be given more assurance about the short term and during that short term, a lot has to happen to give us confidence in the medium term. But, assuming that happens, the long term could be pretty good.

Yes! I think there are enough interested parties to put pressure on DCPS. Do you know if your neighbors in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights are working with Ward 4 Education Alliance? I got the impression that more people were interested in staying with Deal and Wilson rather than working on MacFarland and Roosevelt.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^I kind of agree. After all, the plans for McFarland are so sketchy. I would not be willing to give my time to organizing and fundraising for a future school with no concrete plans.

The Ward 4 Education Alliance - http://ward4ed.org - is working to help develop plans. Obviously, at the moment, DME and DCPS are not on the same page. The first step is to get them together. Like the poster above, I find the opportunity to help build two high-performing schools to be exciting. But, today is not the day to get pulled out of Deal and Wilson (and, luckily, that is not happening). We are very early in the process. DCPS has not even agreed to reopen MacFarland, let alone found funding for it. We need to be given more assurance about the short term and during that short term, a lot has to happen to give us confidence in the medium term. But, assuming that happens, the long term could be pretty good.

Yes! I think there are enough interested parties to put pressure on DCPS. Do you know if your neighbors in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights are working with Ward 4 Education Alliance? I got the impression that more people were interested in staying with Deal and Wilson rather than working on MacFarland and Roosevelt.

A handful of us are working with the Ward 4 Alliance. Somehow, we didn't learn about the organization (previously called ForWard 4) until recently. Obviously, if you are given the choice of staying with Deal and Wilson or going with a nonexistent school and Roosevelt (with the baggage of its recent history), the choice is easy. But, I think there is a growing realization that MacFarland and Roosevelt have potential upsides. However, the transition is very tricky. If it is not handled correctly, it could result in Crestwood essentially abandoning DCPS altogether. Maybe not many would care, but it would be sad just the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My IB schools will be MacFarland and Roosevelt...I could be crazy and could ultimately be worn down by the bueacracy, but I'm actually kind of excited at the prospect of those as new schools. I really, really, really hope that DCPS builds programs there that would attract the high-SES families who are moving into Petworth and 16 Street Heights. My kids are still young enough that MacFarland and Roosevelt could be renovated and reopened as attractive programs. Unfortunately, I'm not thrilled with the plan that Roosevelt will have a world language focus, since our IB elementary school doesn't offer much of anything beyond having a teaching assistant who is Spanish speaking and the limited "world language" requirement set in place by DCPS last year. Wish/hope there will be a shift to STEM or simply a strong commitment to creating lots of advanced classes.

I agree STEM would be a much better option as it could attract students from all over the city on an OOB basis. In fact since both schools require major renovation why not put some of that money to include some of the classroom infrastructure like labs that would be had in the best STEM schools. What charter will have the funds to compete with that.

Maybe the city should provide some additional funds for DCI so that those dual language students in DCPS could feed into that as an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the percentage of Crestwood families who actually send their children to Deal. It is my perception that most send their children to privates and maybe some charters. It also seems that those who do attend DCPS would be more likely to attend Shepherd than West. Might this be why Crestwood was given the boot as opposed to MP?

I don't have rough numbers but my guess based only on anecdotal evidence and experience is that the percentage is not radically different between Crestwood and Mt. Pleasant -- though I expect Mt. Pleasant has significantly more kids. But, Crestwood got booted because Crestwood's elementary schools -- Powell and West -- unlike Bancroft and Shepherd, are not Deal feeders. Also, the Advisory Committee hopes to establish high-performing programs at MacFarland and Roosevelt. Crestwood's 16th St. boundary is only 2 or 3 (depending how you count) blocks from 13th Street where Roosevelt is located (MacFarland is just behind it in the same block). I can see the sense in the proposal, but the problem is the transition. If MacFarland and Roosevelt can be brought up close to Deal/Wilson levels, everyone wins. That's a big "if". DCPS can ease a lot of minds by dispatching several Brinks trucks full of cash aimed at creating top notch programs at those schools. But, nobody expects that to happen.

I doubt that we can marshal the same resources that DC budget can, but we can do what we can. Why not move now to start "Friends of" groups for MacFarland, and the new Ward 4, 7, and Center City middle schools (and others if I have forgotten places) to start to build resources for their kick-off. Done over several years they could give the school a little more breathing room as it struggles in the first few years of opening, and if successful at raising funds, would reassure parents that the community is investing. Quite a number of folks on this site have expressed interest in helping schools across the city. This could be their chance. (In fact, I am one of those parents.)

That sounds like work. I'd much rather gripe on DCUM. Actually, it's a fantastic idea. I will suggest it to my neighbors.

So DC parents should be the ones to fund the better quality schools? Let's just totally let DCPS off the hook! Since DME and DCPS do not work together then all these changes can be made and, as usual, NO ONE will have responsibility over the end result and they'll say, "well why didn't the parents do more. "

Nope, the city needs to step up if you want our kids to feed to these schools.

Not sure about this. A group such as the one suggested could also serve to lobby DCPS to institute programs that are in the interest of our children. Better to try to influence on the front end then gripe after all is said and done.

[Anonymous]

Ugh, Langley for Bloomingdale? Langley makes no sense, my preschooler is supposed to cross North Cap twice a day? That's our "neighborhood"? I think not. So upset about this. Will definitely be at the community meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, Langley for Bloomingdale? Langley makes no sense, my preschooler is supposed to cross North Cap twice a day? That's our "neighborhood"? I think not. So upset about this. Will definitely be at the community meeting.

Are you planning to have your preschooler walk to and from school alone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, Langley for Bloomingdale? Langley makes no sense, my preschooler is supposed to cross North Cap twice a day? That's our "neighborhood"? I think not. So upset about this. Will definitely be at the community meeting.

Are you planning to have your preschooler walk to and from school alone?

Yep, just going to tuck a little child's sized pistol in his pull ups and wish him luck.

Have you ever cross North Cap? There are approximately 2 places, total, to do it and every single one of them is a death trap. I'm afraid to do it myself, let alone with a 4 year old during rush hour.

Beyond that, this is not our neighborhood. The new plan isolates Bloomingdale from its surrounding community; it makes no sense. They're trying to "integrate Eckington" but drawing a line around a six block strip of Bloomingdale is not going to do it. I'm a 15 second walk from "LeDroit Park" and 10 minutes from the closest corner of Eckington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, Langley for Bloomingdale? Langley makes no sense, my preschooler is supposed to cross North Cap twice a day? That's our "neighborhood"? I think not. So upset about this. Will definitely be at the community meeting.

Are you planning to have your preschooler walk to and from school alone?

Yep, just going to tuck a little child's sized pistol in his pull ups and wish him luck.

Have you ever cross North Cap? There are approximately 2 places, total, to do it and every single one of them is a death trap. I'm afraid to do it myself, let alone with a 4 year old during rush hour.

Beyond that, this is not our neighborhood. The new plan isolates Bloomingdale from its surrounding community; it makes no sense. They're trying to "integrate Eckington" but drawing a line around a six block strip of Bloomingdale is not going to do it. I'm a 15 second walk from "LeDroit Park" and 10 minutes from the closest corner of Eckington.

This is actually our problem with Tilden and Conn. Ave NW. Would love our older kid to walk to Hearst alone, but that intersection lacks a crossing guard and has rush hour lane shifts. Not happening.