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

[Anonymous]

The FAQ release says the changes extend the "grandfathering" policy under the new boundary rules issued under Gray (assume this refers to the statement in those rules that students reassigned to a new middle school that is not open yet will retain their "geographic and feeder pathway rights until the new school opens") to 2022. Does this mean kids who get to Deal under the grandfathering policy get to continue on to Wilson? For example a pk4 student this coming fall would be a 6th grader in 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FAQ release says the changes extend the "grandfathering" policy under the new boundary rules issued under Gray (assume this refers to the statement in those rules that students reassigned to a new middle school that is not open yet will retain their "geographic and feeder pathway rights until the new school opens") to 2022. Does this mean kids who get to Deal under the grandfathering policy get to continue on to Wilson? For example a pk4 student this coming fall would be a 6th grader in 2022.

I'm sure they will. Can you imagine the uproar if in 2022 those kids were already in Deal and not allowed to feed to Wilson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FAQ release says the changes extend the "grandfathering" policy under the new boundary rules issued under Gray (assume this refers to the statement in those rules that students reassigned to a new middle school that is not open yet will retain their "geographic and feeder pathway rights until the new school opens") to 2022. Does this mean kids who get to Deal under the grandfathering policy get to continue on to Wilson? For example a pk4 student this coming fall would be a 6th grader in 2022.

I would say yes, because nothing in the boundary review changed the Rhee Rule. The rule is, once you are in a feeder pattern, you get to continue until grade 12.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The FAQ release says the changes extend the "grandfathering" policy under the new boundary rules issued under Gray (assume this refers to the statement in those rules that students reassigned to a new middle school that is not open yet will retain their "geographic and feeder pathway rights until the new school opens") to 2022. Does this mean kids who get to Deal under the grandfathering policy get to continue on to Wilson? For example a pk4 student this coming fall would be a 6th grader in 2022.

Yes, anyone who goes to Deal will get a feeder right to Wilson. Crestwood used to have a separate geographic right to Wilson (unlike Shepherd Park and 16th Street Heights). We are not sure if that is preserved or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

That's why DCPS decided to force Eaton families kicking and screaming to Hardy. Ironically, many of the OOB students at Eaton will have separate neighborhood lifelines to Deal. For Eaton IB families, the "choice" is to suck up Hardy, hope for a good charter spot or dig deep for private (assuming your kid gets in).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

That's why DCPS decided to force Eaton families kicking and screaming to Hardy. Ironically, many of the OOB students at Eaton will have separate neighborhood lifelines to Deal. For Eaton IB families, the "choice" is to suck up Hardy, hope for a good charter spot or dig deep for private (assuming your kid gets in).

What schools are kids IB for that feed to Deal, that they have opted for Eaton instead? That just seems like it would not be very many kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people suggest for the overcrowded schools, if not changing boundaries? Actual suggestions.

Feeder rights. Plain and simple. Deal is 31% OOB. Are people ok with that? Even if you're not willing to cut feeder rights the elementaries should cap the OOB enrollment even if it means cutting funding.

So, let me get this straight, are you arguing for eotp feeder rights to Deal, but that otherwise OOB families should not be allowed to go to Deal?

NP. I agree. I do not think its fair for Eaton to lose Deal and Hearst and others have 80% OOB to make Deal, the "overcrowded" school have 30% OOB.

and let's not forget that the OOB "automatic feeder rights" were only established by Rhee in 2009. In the past, OOB kids had to lottery in to ES, then MS, then HS. There was no "one and done" for them. If any right is not truly vested, it is the recent right created by Michelle Rhee, which is the true cause of the overcrowding of Deal and Wilson. She had no long term vision, and no long term commitment to DC. We were her stepping stone, and she, combined with the recession that led more IB WOTP kids to go to their IB schools, created the overcrowding, the educational campuses that closed the middle schools, and the crazy standards above and beyond that led to rampant cheating that was never investigated.

I think the automatic feeder rights for OOB students created in 2009 which are much more recent than 40 year old feeder patterns is what should have been taken away, especially with the automatic 25% set asides now for "at risk" kids.

[Anonymous]

What is Mary Cheh's view on OOB feeder rights? I can't see that ever being a politically viable stance to go back on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is Mary Cheh's view on OOB feeder rights? I can't see that ever being a politically viable stance to go back on that.

Not sure, but I know she is in favor of building a new middle school in upper NW. That would solve the Deal vs "raw Deal" (Hardy) problem.

[Anonymous]

why doesn't she fix Hardy now? Or close Hardy and open a new middle school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Mary Cheh's view on OOB feeder rights? I can't see that ever being a politically viable stance to go back on that.

Not sure, but I know she is in favor of building a new middle school in upper NW. That would solve the Deal vs "raw Deal" (Hardy) problem.

Your statement is about 2 year old. She's now moved on, as the idea did not prove as popular as she had thought, and because Hardy has now leapfrogged and the increased number of actual IB parents (as well as a large group of IB prospective parents now working with the school) would see this as an hostile move.

What I know is that she is committed to protecting the present feeder rights of her constituency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Mary Cheh's view on OOB feeder rights? I can't see that ever being a politically viable stance to go back on that.

Not sure, but I know she is in favor of building a new middle school in upper NW. That would solve the Deal vs "raw Deal" (Hardy) problem.

Your statement is about 2 year old. She's now moved on, as the idea did not prove as popular as she had thought, and because Hardy has now leapfrogged and the increased number of actual IB parents (as well as a large group of IB prospective parents now working with the school) would see this as an hostile move.

What I know is that she is committed to protecting the present feeder rights of her constituency.

Like she did for Eaton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Mary Cheh's view on OOB feeder rights? I can't see that ever being a politically viable stance to go back on that.

Not sure, but I know she is in favor of building a new middle school in upper NW. That would solve the Deal vs "raw Deal" (Hardy) problem.

Your statement is about 2 year old. She's now moved on, as the idea did not prove as popular as she had thought, and because Hardy has now leapfrogged and the increased number of actual IB parents (as well as a large group of IB prospective parents now working with the school) would see this as an hostile move.

What I know is that she is committed to protecting the present feeder rights of her constituency.

Like she did for Eaton?

So far, Mary Cheh has done jack sh@# for Eaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Tax base would be just fine without W3. My property and income taxes. We will keep W2. I am W4 and my property and income taxes are just as high of not higher than W3. Plus we would close the schools. Please don't forget it was only pretty recently when W3 starting sending their kids to Deal/Wilson.

[Anonymous]

What does all this "only recently" talk about ward 3 sending kids to Deal and Wilson even mean?

The schools are currently, as of this writing, located in ward 3.

Should the residents of said ward not have an expectation to continue going to those schools?

Why does it matter at all to current families who did what when in the past? That sounds like political hand-waving.