MacFarland Middle & Roosevelt High - Status?

[Anonymous]

First - students at Bancroft are already being offered dual language slots at MacFarland.

Nine other schools are part of its feeder pattern. Leave Shepherd where it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess... you're zoned for Eaton and got zoned out of Deal?

You clearly don't care about MacFarland, so why should I care what you think would be awesome?

Nope, I've got zero dog in this fight. I get no benefit either way. I just think DCPS's "build it and they will come" plan is a stupid one that's doomed to failure and a waste of money. I do want MacFarland to succeed because I'm watching DCPS dump a bunch of money down a bottomless hole right now.

What's your bias? Shepherd Park resident who needs to claim rights over Deal?

It is remarkable that someone with no dog in the fight would have such a strong and immovable opinion, not only that MacFarland should be improved, and not only that schools should be cut from Deal to achieve that, but also regarding the specific schools that should be removed from Deal and fed to MacFarland instead. The specificity of your viewpoint is as remarkable as the forcefulness with which you express it. Usually people with no dog in the fight are a bit more philosophical, open to different ideas......

I'm totally open to other ideas. Do you have any good ones? The current plan of just waiting and hoping for MacFarland to become an excellent school is a sure loser. PP's idea about eliminating OOB feeder rights is an ok one for reducing overcrowding at Deal, but I don't see how it helps to improve MacFarland.

Just as MacFarland needs an infusion of cash and know how, it needs an infusion of good students and committed families. I see no way that happens voluntarily. So the only option is to make it involuntary. The Shepherd people are always bragging about their strong school, so that's an obvious choice. Similar for Powell and Bancroft. All three are at least as close to MacFarland as they are to Deal, probably closer.

What good ideas do you have?

"Waiting and hoping": it's been one year? or not even one year yet? Maybe give it a few years before writing it off as a failure?

"OOB feeder rights": are you sure it wouldn't help? where do you think the OOB families live?

"Strong students": are you defining this by test scores? Are you saying that the three schools you name have higher average test scores than the schools that feed MacFarland? By how much?

"Voluntary": it happened at Deal voluntarily. It's maybe happening at Hardy now. Why not MacFarland?

"Always bragging": IRL or on DCUM? are you basing your policy recommendations entirely on what you read on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess... you're zoned for Eaton and got zoned out of Deal?

You clearly don't care about MacFarland, so why should I care what you think would be awesome?

Nope, I've got zero dog in this fight. I get no benefit either way. I just think DCPS's "build it and they will come" plan is a stupid one that's doomed to failure and a waste of money. I do want MacFarland to succeed because I'm watching DCPS dump a bunch of money down a bottomless hole right now.

What's your bias? Shepherd Park resident who needs to claim rights over Deal?

No. Zoned for MacFarland now. May or may not send the kids there, but I have a few years to figure that out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But that all goes over your heads because *gasp* there will be many poors there. For those of us who can get past that, maybe there will be something to the school. And maybe not, but I'm willing to hang around and see instead of poo pooing it because of the "awfulness" of the feeders.

It's the communities around Bancroft Powell and Shepherd who would be asked to go. They're not "afraid of poors," so they won't be concerned about the shift, right? Wouldn't those communities just jump at the chance to escape the terrible attitudes of Deal parents and instead build a righteous community of learners at MacFarland?

I say continue the diversity and have Janney and Murch directed to McFarland.

[Anonymous]

Just have MacFarland and Deal swap names. Much cheaper.

Better yet, name all middle schools "Alice Deal," so Bowser can keep her campaign pledge of "Deal for all!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess... you're zoned for Eaton and got zoned out of Deal?

You clearly don't care about MacFarland, so why should I care what you think would be awesome?

Nope, I've got zero dog in this fight. I get no benefit either way. I just think DCPS's "build it and they will come" plan is a stupid one that's doomed to failure and a waste of money. I do want MacFarland to succeed because I'm watching DCPS dump a bunch of money down a bottomless hole right now.

What's your bias? Shepherd Park resident who needs to claim rights over Deal?

It is remarkable that someone with no dog in the fight would have such a strong and immovable opinion, not only that MacFarland should be improved, and not only that schools should be cut from Deal to achieve that, but also regarding the specific schools that should be removed from Deal and fed to MacFarland instead. The specificity of your viewpoint is as remarkable as the forcefulness with which you express it. Usually people with no dog in the fight are a bit more philosophical, open to different ideas......

I'm totally open to other ideas. Do you have any good ones? The current plan of just waiting and hoping for MacFarland to become an excellent school is a sure loser. PP's idea about eliminating OOB feeder rights is an ok one for reducing overcrowding at Deal, but I don't see how it helps to improve MacFarland.

Just as MacFarland needs an infusion of cash and know how, it needs an infusion of good students and committed families. I see no way that happens voluntarily. So the only option is to make it involuntary. The Shepherd people are always bragging about their strong school, so that's an obvious choice. Similar for Powell and Bancroft. All three are at least as close to MacFarland as they are to Deal, probably closer.

What good ideas do you have?

Why does it need that? What if it serves the students who are going to be there really well? I'd call that a success. And maybe it looks more like Hardy than Deal.

Unless your measure of success is entirely from the standpoint of how many white kids go there...

[Anonymous]

Are you saying that the three schools you name have higher average test scores than the schools that feed MacFarland? By how much?

Barnard 57 / 51
Truesdale 42 /67
Bruce Monroe 28 / 45
Raymond 46 / 57
West 56 / 68

Shepherd 73 / 76
Bancroft 30 / 56
Powell 49 /58

Here are the most recent CAS scores of the other MacFarland feeders. Looks like Shepherd would certainly help the average.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be confusion about what schools will feed MacFarland. Bancroft is already in the mix, as are many other students in immersion programs.

I don't think there's room or a rationale to put Shepherd in the mix. The building will hold 600.

Geographic feeders / PARCC % proficient and advanced

West - ELA 28 Math 21
Bruce Monroe - ELA 15 Math 18
Truesdell - ELA 14 Math 20
Barnard - ELA 26 Math 25
Powell - ELA 15 Math 35
Raymond - ELA 16 Math 13

Programmatic feeder rights :

Cleveland - ELA 31 Math 26
Marie Reed - ELA 18 Math 33
Tyler - ELA 19 Math 27
Bancroft - ELA 12 Math 20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally open to other ideas. Do you have any good ones? The current plan of just waiting and hoping for MacFarland to become an excellent school is a sure loser. PP's idea about eliminating OOB feeder rights is an ok one for reducing overcrowding at Deal, but I don't see how it helps to improve MacFarland.

Just as MacFarland needs an infusion of cash and know how, it needs an infusion of good students and committed families. I see no way that happens voluntarily. So the only option is to make it involuntary. The Shepherd people are always bragging about their strong school, so that's an obvious choice. Similar for Powell and Bancroft. All three are at least as close to MacFarland as they are to Deal, probably closer.

What good ideas do you have?

Why does it need that? What if it serves the students who are going to be there really well? I'd call that a success. And maybe it looks more like Hardy than Deal.

Unless your measure of success is entirely from the standpoint of how many white kids go there...

I suppose if all we want is to create a middle school in Ward 4, then you are correct MacFarland doesn't "need" anything. But the problem is that old MacFarland closed because no one sent kids there and it was less than 25% occupied. Many people are hoping new MacFarland will be somehow better than or different from old MacFarland, so that Ward 4 families will want to send children there. If we basically just give old MacFarland a facelift and then reopen it, what do you expect to change? I think there will be little to no change, and it will just fail again. Ward 4 will continue to abandon DCPS and flock to charters, while small pockets of privilege in Ward 4 will continue to apply political power to ensure their children get access to Deal. Those in Ward 4 without money and political power will be left to fight for the scraps.

If all you want is the same failed model we had 5 years ago, then it makes sense to just open MacFarland as planned and let things take their course. If you want something better, you need to come up with some new ideas. I've offered one that I think is worthy of consideration, although as I said from the outset, I know nothing like my idea will never happen because the politically powerful in Ward 4 will prevent Bowser from even considering it.

And you can stuff your "white kids" accusation. I've said nothing about race, and I don't give a flip what the race of the kids are. In fact, I haven't looked at any of the demographics, but I'd guess my proposal leads to a majority-black MacFarland. The racial bean counting you're doing is a big part of why DCPS is continuing to struggle.

[Anonymous]

I think you are just a little late to the party -

There is a very active group of engaged parents who have been working to make MacFarland better / different for quite some time now.

Changing the feeder pattern is off the table because it would be disruptive not just to the Shepherd community but to the Marie Reed, Tyler and Cleveland who are committing to dual language knowing there's a dual language middle school for their children to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally open to other ideas. Do you have any good ones? The current plan of just waiting and hoping for MacFarland to become an excellent school is a sure loser. PP's idea about eliminating OOB feeder rights is an ok one for reducing overcrowding at Deal, but I don't see how it helps to improve MacFarland.

Just as MacFarland needs an infusion of cash and know how, it needs an infusion of good students and committed families. I see no way that happens voluntarily. So the only option is to make it involuntary. The Shepherd people are always bragging about their strong school, so that's an obvious choice. Similar for Powell and Bancroft. All three are at least as close to MacFarland as they are to Deal, probably closer.

What good ideas do you have?

Why does it need that? What if it serves the students who are going to be there really well? I'd call that a success. And maybe it looks more like Hardy than Deal.

Unless your measure of success is entirely from the standpoint of how many white kids go there...

I suppose if all we want is to create a middle school in Ward 4, then you are correct MacFarland doesn't "need" anything. But the problem is that old MacFarland closed because no one sent kids there and it was less than 25% occupied. Many people are hoping new MacFarland will be somehow better than or different from old MacFarland, so that Ward 4 families will want to send children there. If we basically just give old MacFarland a facelift and then reopen it, what do you expect to change? I think there will be little to no change, and it will just fail again. Ward 4 will continue to abandon DCPS and flock to charters, while small pockets of privilege in Ward 4 will continue to apply political power to ensure their children get access to Deal. Those in Ward 4 without money and political power will be left to fight for the scraps.

If all you want is the same failed model we had 5 years ago, then it makes sense to just open MacFarland as planned and let things take their course. If you want something better, you need to come up with some new ideas. I've offered one that I think is worthy of consideration, although as I said from the outset, I know nothing like my idea will never happen because the politically powerful in Ward 4 will prevent Bowser from even considering it.

And you can stuff your "white kids" accusation. I've said nothing about race, and I don't give a flip what the race of the kids are. In fact, I haven't looked at any of the demographics, but I'd guess my proposal leads to a majority-black MacFarland. The racial bean counting you're doing is a big part of why DCPS is continuing to struggle.

There were far fewer kids in the area 5-10 years ago compared to today, and projected for 5-10 years from now. If you look at all the trends, there is a population boom coming through - especially in this area - and not just at the toddler stage. So no, I don't expect MacFarland of 5-10 years ago to be the same as MacFarland today or 5-10 years from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally open to other ideas. Do you have any good ones? The current plan of just waiting and hoping for MacFarland to become an excellent school is a sure loser. PP's idea about eliminating OOB feeder rights is an ok one for reducing overcrowding at Deal, but I don't see how it helps to improve MacFarland.

Just as MacFarland needs an infusion of cash and know how, it needs an infusion of good students and committed families. I see no way that happens voluntarily. So the only option is to make it involuntary. The Shepherd people are always bragging about their strong school, so that's an obvious choice. Similar for Powell and Bancroft. All three are at least as close to MacFarland as they are to Deal, probably closer.

What good ideas do you have?

Why does it need that? What if it serves the students who are going to be there really well? I'd call that a success. And maybe it looks more like Hardy than Deal.

Unless your measure of success is entirely from the standpoint of how many white kids go there...

I suppose if all we want is to create a middle school in Ward 4, then you are correct MacFarland doesn't "need" anything. But the problem is that old MacFarland closed because no one sent kids there and it was less than 25% occupied. Many people are hoping new MacFarland will be somehow better than or different from old MacFarland, so that Ward 4 families will want to send children there. If we basically just give old MacFarland a facelift and then reopen it, what do you expect to change? I think there will be little to no change, and it will just fail again. Ward 4 will continue to abandon DCPS and flock to charters, while small pockets of privilege in Ward 4 will continue to apply political power to ensure their children get access to Deal. Those in Ward 4 without money and political power will be left to fight for the scraps.

If all you want is the same failed model we had 5 years ago, then it makes sense to just open MacFarland as planned and let things take their course. If you want something better, you need to come up with some new ideas. I've offered one that I think is worthy of consideration, although as I said from the outset, I know nothing like my idea will never happen because the politically powerful in Ward 4 will prevent Bowser from even considering it.

And you can stuff your "white kids" accusation. I've said nothing about race, and I don't give a flip what the race of the kids are. In fact, I haven't looked at any of the demographics, but I'd guess my proposal leads to a majority-black MacFarland. The racial bean counting you're doing is a big part of why DCPS is continuing to struggle.

How long have these areas had access to Deal? How did it come about? and which areas? SP? Mt P?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally open to other ideas. Do you have any good ones? The current plan of just waiting and hoping for MacFarland to become an excellent school is a sure loser. PP's idea about eliminating OOB feeder rights is an ok one for reducing overcrowding at Deal, but I don't see how it helps to improve MacFarland.

Just as MacFarland needs an infusion of cash and know how, it needs an infusion of good students and committed families. I see no way that happens voluntarily. So the only option is to make it involuntary. The Shepherd people are always bragging about their strong school, so that's an obvious choice. Similar for Powell and Bancroft. All three are at least as close to MacFarland as they are to Deal, probably closer.

What good ideas do you have?

Why does it need that? What if it serves the students who are going to be there really well? I'd call that a success. And maybe it looks more like Hardy than Deal.

Unless your measure of success is entirely from the standpoint of how many white kids go there...

I suppose if all we want is to create a middle school in Ward 4, then you are correct MacFarland doesn't "need" anything. But the problem is that old MacFarland closed because no one sent kids there and it was less than 25% occupied. Many people are hoping new MacFarland will be somehow better than or different from old MacFarland, so that Ward 4 families will want to send children there. If we basically just give old MacFarland a facelift and then reopen it, what do you expect to change? I think there will be little to no change, and it will just fail again. Ward 4 will continue to abandon DCPS and flock to charters, while small pockets of privilege in Ward 4 will continue to apply political power to ensure their children get access to Deal. Those in Ward 4 without money and political power will be left to fight for the scraps.

If all you want is the same failed model we had 5 years ago, then it makes sense to just open MacFarland as planned and let things take their course. If you want something better, you need to come up with some new ideas. I've offered one that I think is worthy of consideration, although as I said from the outset, I know nothing like my idea will never happen because the politically powerful in Ward 4 will prevent Bowser from even considering it.

And you can stuff your "white kids" accusation. I've said nothing about race, and I don't give a flip what the race of the kids are. In fact, I haven't looked at any of the demographics, but I'd guess my proposal leads to a majority-black MacFarland. The racial bean counting you're doing is a big part of why DCPS is continuing to struggle.

Lafayette is in ward 4, it should feed to Macfarland too right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:How long have these areas had access to Deal? How did it come about? and which areas? SP? Mt P?

Since 1967 as a result the Hobson v. Hansen ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It'd be a lot more interesting to have this conversation with anyone who has skin in the game (other than people just looking to kick out EOTP from Deal).

The new principal at Roosevelt seems great. Perhaps she and the upcoming principal at MacFarland can make something great of the schools.

But that all goes over your heads because *gasp* there will be many poors there. For those of us who can get past that, maybe there will be something to the school. And maybe not, but I'm willing to hang around and see instead of poo pooing it because of the "awfulness" of the feeders.

just facts. Any school with more than 30% FARMS rate is going to struggle. then it becomes self fullfilling and the few high SES families will finally give up due to remedial class work and behaviral problems and the school is pretty much nothing but FARMS.