Mayor Bowser to Make Education Policy and Personnel Announcement - Boundary Decision?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
But what is the distinction? These are all eotp families vying for spots at Deal. Why does one group have more of a right? How does the city as a whole divide a scarce resource? |
Anonymous
Not PP, but your question is confusing and/or confused. By "EOTP feeder rights", are you referring to a) people EOTP and IB for Deal but not IB for a Deal feeder (eg Crestwood), or b) people EOTP and IB for a feeder school to Deal (Bancroft, Shepherd), or c) people who are OOB at an elementary school that feeds to Deal If (c), then you should understand that not all of these people live EOTP. Many of them live IB for Hardy. |
Anonymous
| Bowser took care of her base. As for those people in Ward 3 who are screaming about being pushed out of Deal to lesser-quality Hardy, consider this: Bowser lost Ward 3 big time, so she doesn't give a fu#@ what you think. No extended grandfathering for you. |
Anonymous
She's representing Chocolate City. |
Anonymous
There really is no use arguing with people like this. #1 Crestwood has all of 10 kids that enter middle school each year. A new school is NOT being built for them. They are being sent there after a reasonable grace period after this still unicorn status school opens. Let's be real, we all know DC. This 2022 year could very well end up being all of a 1-2 year grace period. #2, are you really talking about the same Deal that IB WOTP kids weren't attending? |
Anonymous
Bullshit. Even Catania said he wasn't going to allow the DME plan go through which means Crestwood and all the OOB kids at Eaton would have stayed at Deal. |
Anonymous
Newsflash...7/8 of the city doesn't give a shit about you people. Especially after seeing the way you conduct yourselves on this board. |
Anonymous
I didn't call you racist. You (or a group of like-minded posters in this thread) keep asking the same question over and over again: how can we reduce crowding at Deal. But it's been answered, on DCUM and in the boundary review process. DME staff stated openly that maintaining diversity at Deal was the main rationale behind the new Deal boundary. Some effort was made to reduce crowding, by removing Eaton, and by removing Crestwood and 16th St Heights (which has been preserved by Bowser but delayed for a number of years). The DME staff also said that their plan would alleviate crowding at Deal. But as you point out, they could have reduced the crowding even more, by eliminating all EOTP areas that were IB for Deal. They declined to do so. We can therefore conclude that for the DME, the reduction of crowding was important, but not so important that it be done at the cost of eliminating diversity at Deal. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? In a city where most of the education options are poor and there is an ugly history of segregation, why wouldn't the city attempt to maximize access to its few success stories, especially for diverse populations? Look, you are either very, very, very, very concerned about school crowding. Or... you would have liked to see some of these EOTP neighborhoods rezoned to MacFarland in order to help build critical mass at that school. Or... you are just generally upset that some people have access to higher quality schools while others do not. If the former, there are a couple of things for you to consider. The first is, as I've said, the policy makers don't see crowding as the most important policy issue in DC education. And I think most residents of DC and even most families at Deal agree. Better to have some crowding, if diverse access to quality can be maintained. You are entitled to disagree. Many of us attended high quality but crowded public schools when we were children. Perhaps you attended uncrowded schools. If that's the case, I encourage you to read the research. There is some correlation between class size and outcomes, but I'm not aware of a correlation between school size and outcomes, or building capacity and outcomes (short of fire hazard). It's more of a preference. Some people like small cozy schools, some like large ones with lots of programs. But as long as a decent teacher ratio is maintained (Deal's is 1:24), then the quality is objectively the same. Therefore, from a policy perspective, it is not reasonable to cut off access to a quality school, especially for a diverse population, simply because other people might prefer a smaller school. If it's either of the latter, then I'm sorry it didn't work out the way you wanted. As Jeff has tried to explain to you, I don't think you would have been successful in forcing people, people who bought or rented IB for Deal and had that expectation, to work on MacFarland with you against their will. But in any event, surely this plan for a revitalized MacFarland gives more reason for optimism than what was there before. Meaning, when you or anyone else bought or rented your houses in years prior to this boundary review, you researched the schools at the time and you decided to go ahead anyway. And now the city is promising you something better than whatever you could reasonably have expected when you bought or rented your houses. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
I don't think there is anyone in Crestwood who thinks we have a problem. To the contrary, we now have the best of both worlds. Once MacFarland opens, we will have a right to go there. If we prefer to stay at Deal -- over-crowded though it may be -- we also have that option. I expect that there will be residents making both choices though, of course, a lot depends on the reality of MacFarland (something about which we can only speculate at this point). |
Anonymous
| Well, Eaton families never chose Hardy when they had the choice, so it will be surprising if it works out that way. Let's hope it turns out better! |
Anonymous
Completely agree. Is the council member to ward 4, or mayor to the entire city? |
Anonymous
It's called a campaign promise. She said shed make tweaks just like Catania did. Her tweets did not just benefit ward 4. |
Anonymous
| Her tweets, that is a good one. |
Anonymous
| *tweaks (auto complete) |
Anonymous
Yeah, why not spin off Ward 3 so you don't have to deal with such pesky entitled people? Let the ward join MoCo or something. Oh wait then how would you get spots at basically the only good public schools in the city? And who would pay the bills for all the spending schemes and no-show jobs program otherwise known as the DC government? |