shepherd

[Anonymous]

As will the angry equity folks EOTP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

Deal is at 106% capacity and Wilson is at 102%. Simply removing the ability for families that move OOB to stay in feeder forever would address this immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is highly unlikely that DCPS is going to remove the highest scoring majority-black elementary school from the best middle and high school feed. The optics and politics would be astoundingly bad.

This. Any other school is more likely to be removed from the feeder pattern before Shepherd because taking the only majority black school out of the Deal feeder pattern would look very racist and would look like taking most of the black kids out of the feeder pattern. Which it would, in fact, be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As will the angry equity folks EOTP.

Trying to find a way to read this post as anything but completely dismissive of the majority of residents of the city who are either concerned about equity or are people of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is highly unlikely that DCPS is going to remove the highest scoring majority-black elementary school from the best middle and high school feed. The optics and politics would be astoundingly bad.

This. Any other school is more likely to be removed from the feeder pattern before Shepherd because taking the only majority black school out of the Deal feeder pattern would look very racist and would look like taking most of the black kids out of the feeder pattern. Which it would, in fact, be.

Shepherd is also the only IB feeder to IB Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

Deal is at 106% capacity and Wilson is at 102%. Simply removing the ability for families that move OOB to stay in feeder forever would address this immediately.

Are there any actual numbers -- not the usual DCUM exaggerated speculation -- on how many kids at each school started at a Deal/Wilson feeder but now live OOB? Is it such a high percentage that changing that rule would have an immediate effect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

Deal is at 106% capacity and Wilson is at 102%. Simply removing the ability for families that move OOB to stay in feeder forever would address this immediately.

Are there any actual numbers -- not the usual DCUM exaggerated speculation -- on how many kids at each school started at a Deal/Wilson feeder but now live OOB? Is it such a high percentage that changing that rule would have an immediate effect?

NP. Kids that move OOB get to stay at the feeder, but do not get feeder rights to Deal and Wilson. And it sounds like PP has a bee in her bonnet, because I agree that it's unlikely to be more than a nominal number and certainly not enough to address overcrowding. I think PP means kids that lottery into an OOB spot at a feeder get feeder rights, but aside from the Spanish dominant preference spots at the bilingual schools and a few Hardy feeders (i.e., H-A), there just aren't OOB spots available anymore. PP may be older and thinking of how it was 10+ years ago, but changing feeder rights now wouldn't do anything because only a handful of kids get in OOB and unless you want to tell the, ahem, *Spanish dominant* kids that THEY lose their feeder rights, you're only talking a drop in the bucket once today's early elementary kids are at Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As will the angry equity folks EOTP.

Trying to find a way to read this post as anything but completely dismissive of the majority of residents of the city who are either concerned about equity or are people of color.

I read it as the are no people WotP concerned about equity, angry or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

Deal is at 106% capacity and Wilson is at 102%. Simply removing the ability for families that move OOB to stay in feeder forever would address this immediately.

Are there any actual numbers -- not the usual DCUM exaggerated speculation -- on how many kids at each school started at a Deal/Wilson feeder but now live OOB? Is it such a high percentage that changing that rule would have an immediate effect?

NP. Kids that move OOB get to stay at the feeder, but do not get feeder rights to Deal and Wilson. And it sounds like PP has a bee in her bonnet, because I agree that it's unlikely to be more than a nominal number and certainly not enough to address overcrowding. I think PP means kids that lottery into an OOB spot at a feeder get feeder rights, but aside from the Spanish dominant preference spots at the bilingual schools and a few Hardy feeders (i.e., H-A), there just aren't OOB spots available anymore. PP may be older and thinking of how it was 10+ years ago, but changing feeder rights now wouldn't do anything because only a handful of kids get in OOB and unless you want to tell the, ahem, *Spanish dominant* kids that THEY lose their feeder rights, you're only talking a drop in the bucket once today's early elementary kids are at Deal.

That may not be the case on paper but I have three friends that were able to enroll at Deal after graduating from a feeder school despite no longer living IB to the feeder. I really don’t think Deal registrar has a way of knowing whether a Hearst graduate attended Hearst as IB or OOB or at one time an IB student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is highly unlikely that DCPS is going to remove the highest scoring majority-black elementary school from the best middle and high school feed. The optics and politics would be astoundingly bad.

This. Any other school is more likely to be removed from the feeder pattern before Shepherd because taking the only majority black school out of the Deal feeder pattern would look very racist and would look like taking most of the black kids out of the feeder pattern. Which it would, in fact, be.

Shepherd is also the only IB feeder to IB Deal.

Not sure that really matters one way or the other, as a graduate of an IB high school who didn't attend IB elementary or middle schools. The bigger issues are, as people pointed out, Shepherd is relatively small, so removing it doesn't change Deal and Wilson's overcrowding much, and it would be seen (correctly) as outrageous to remove a majority black school from that feeder pattern. It would also run counter to much of DCPS's stated goals and policies around equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

Deal is at 106% capacity and Wilson is at 102%. Simply removing the ability for families that move OOB to stay in feeder forever would address this immediately.

Are there any actual numbers -- not the usual DCUM exaggerated speculation -- on how many kids at each school started at a Deal/Wilson feeder but now live OOB? Is it such a high percentage that changing that rule would have an immediate effect?

NP. Kids that move OOB get to stay at the feeder, but do not get feeder rights to Deal and Wilson. And it sounds like PP has a bee in her bonnet, because I agree that it's unlikely to be more than a nominal number and certainly not enough to address overcrowding. I think PP means kids that lottery into an OOB spot at a feeder get feeder rights, but aside from the Spanish dominant preference spots at the bilingual schools and a few Hardy feeders (i.e., H-A), there just aren't OOB spots available anymore. PP may be older and thinking of how it was 10+ years ago, but changing feeder rights now wouldn't do anything because only a handful of kids get in OOB and unless you want to tell the, ahem, *Spanish dominant* kids that THEY lose their feeder rights, you're only talking a drop in the bucket once today's early elementary kids are at Deal.

That may not be the case on paper but I have three friends that were able to enroll at Deal after graduating from a feeder school despite no longer living IB to the feeder. I really don’t think Deal registrar has a way of knowing whether a Hearst graduate attended Hearst as IB or OOB or at one time an IB student.

Not to mention renting an apartment IB for Deal for a month, registering, and moving back to your old house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

Deal is at 106% capacity and Wilson is at 102%. Simply removing the ability for families that move OOB to stay in feeder forever would address this immediately.

Are there any actual numbers -- not the usual DCUM exaggerated speculation -- on how many kids at each school started at a Deal/Wilson feeder but now live OOB? Is it such a high percentage that changing that rule would have an immediate effect?

NP. Kids that move OOB get to stay at the feeder, but do not get feeder rights to Deal and Wilson. And it sounds like PP has a bee in her bonnet, because I agree that it's unlikely to be more than a nominal number and certainly not enough to address overcrowding. I think PP means kids that lottery into an OOB spot at a feeder get feeder rights, but aside from the Spanish dominant preference spots at the bilingual schools and a few Hardy feeders (i.e., H-A), there just aren't OOB spots available anymore. PP may be older and thinking of how it was 10+ years ago, but changing feeder rights now wouldn't do anything because only a handful of kids get in OOB and unless you want to tell the, ahem, *Spanish dominant* kids that THEY lose their feeder rights, you're only talking a drop in the bucket once today's early elementary kids are at Deal.

That may not be the case on paper but I have three friends that were able to enroll at Deal after graduating from a feeder school despite no longer living IB to the feeder. I really don’t think Deal registrar has a way of knowing whether a Hearst graduate attended Hearst as IB or OOB or at one time an IB student.

But that’s a question of enforcing current policy, not changing policy (in a way that disproportionately impacts minority students).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

Deal is at 106% capacity and Wilson is at 102%. Simply removing the ability for families that move OOB to stay in feeder forever would address this immediately.

Are there any actual numbers -- not the usual DCUM exaggerated speculation -- on how many kids at each school started at a Deal/Wilson feeder but now live OOB? Is it such a high percentage that changing that rule would have an immediate effect?

NP. Kids that move OOB get to stay at the feeder, but do not get feeder rights to Deal and Wilson. And it sounds like PP has a bee in her bonnet, because I agree that it's unlikely to be more than a nominal number and certainly not enough to address overcrowding. I think PP means kids that lottery into an OOB spot at a feeder get feeder rights, but aside from the Spanish dominant preference spots at the bilingual schools and a few Hardy feeders (i.e., H-A), there just aren't OOB spots available anymore. PP may be older and thinking of how it was 10+ years ago, but changing feeder rights now wouldn't do anything because only a handful of kids get in OOB and unless you want to tell the, ahem, *Spanish dominant* kids that THEY lose their feeder rights, you're only talking a drop in the bucket once today's early elementary kids are at Deal.

That may not be the case on paper but I have three friends that were able to enroll at Deal after graduating from a feeder school despite no longer living IB to the feeder. I really don’t think Deal registrar has a way of knowing whether a Hearst graduate attended Hearst as IB or OOB or at one time an IB student.

Not to mention renting an apartment IB for Deal for a month, registering, and moving back to your old house

Look, if you don’t like it, why do you keep mentioning it in a public forum? I had no idea that policy existed, but now that I do, why wouldn’t I take advantage of it if the lottery never pans out? Are you just jealous because you didn’t figure it out until you bought in a Deal feeder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t see a universe where shepherd stays in the deal feed. But what do I know?

The only way that happens (for optics reasons, which is all Bowser cares about) is if Lafayette leaves with it, but there isn't anyplace EOTP where all those kids can fit. But I bet that will be on the table during the next boundary discussions in a few years. The Lafayette Karens will lose their minds.

It's not just optics. Shepherd is a small school and pushing it out of the feeder pattern wouldn't move the needle on overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. If you're actually concerned about overcrowding, not just pushing out the kids you don't think "deserve" to be there because . . . reasons . . . then you realize that removing Shepherd doesn't solve the problem. Removing Shepherd and Lafayette significantly impacts the school population.

Deal is at 106% capacity and Wilson is at 102%. Simply removing the ability for families that move OOB to stay in feeder forever would address this immediately.

Are there any actual numbers -- not the usual DCUM exaggerated speculation -- on how many kids at each school started at a Deal/Wilson feeder but now live OOB? Is it such a high percentage that changing that rule would have an immediate effect?

NP. Kids that move OOB get to stay at the feeder, but do not get feeder rights to Deal and Wilson. And it sounds like PP has a bee in her bonnet, because I agree that it's unlikely to be more than a nominal number and certainly not enough to address overcrowding. I think PP means kids that lottery into an OOB spot at a feeder get feeder rights, but aside from the Spanish dominant preference spots at the bilingual schools and a few Hardy feeders (i.e., H-A), there just aren't OOB spots available anymore. PP may be older and thinking of how it was 10+ years ago, but changing feeder rights now wouldn't do anything because only a handful of kids get in OOB and unless you want to tell the, ahem, *Spanish dominant* kids that THEY lose their feeder rights, you're only talking a drop in the bucket once today's early elementary kids are at Deal.

That may not be the case on paper but I have three friends that were able to enroll at Deal after graduating from a feeder school despite no longer living IB to the feeder. I really don’t think Deal registrar has a way of knowing whether a Hearst graduate attended Hearst as IB or OOB or at one time an IB student.

Not to mention renting an apartment IB for Deal for a month, registering, and moving back to your old house

Look, if you don’t like it, why do you keep mentioning it in a public forum? I had no idea that policy existed, but now that I do, why wouldn’t I take advantage of it if the lottery never pans out? Are you just jealous because you didn’t figure it out until you bought in a Deal feeder?

You’re mis-reading my intent. That’s what I plan to do if I can’t get my DD into a Deal feeder.