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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

During the boundary process she called for a meeting with her Ward 3 constituents at Chevy Chase Library. We were about 40 parents in total, and I recall only one parent from Eaton attending , from the PTO (and he was not even a Ward 3 resident).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

During the boundary process she called for a meeting with her Ward 3 constituents at Chevy Chase Library. We were about 40 parents in total, and I recall only one parent from Eaton attending , from the PTO (and he was not even a Ward 3 resident).

Maybe someone from Eaton can respond, but I thought they had a petition with many, many signatures?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

During the boundary process she called for a meeting with her Ward 3 constituents at Chevy Chase Library. We were about 40 parents in total, and I recall only one parent from Eaton attending , from the PTO (and he was not even a Ward 3 resident).

Maybe someone from Eaton can respond, but I thought they had a petition with many, many signatures?

It takes nothing to collect signatures. Meeting with your voters who point fingers and tell you that they will hold you accountable for boundary unfavorable outcomes (such as a group of Stoddert + Mann/Hardy parents) is a different things. I was surprised by their number and cohesion. Then there was a smaller delegation (I was part of) from Oyster. I recall just one parent from Eaton.

[Anonymous]

Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

And feed to where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

Impossible, this would make Wilson Deal's private outlet...

I believe that what will happen is that Deal feeders, especially Hearst and Eaton, will receive input to restrict OB access at higher grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

A large area of Hardy's boundary is at 5 mins by bike from Wilson. This is when you would generate a civil fight between these areas against feeder rights of schools EOP.

Not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

Impossible, this would make Wilson Deal's private outlet...

I believe that what will happen is that Deal feeders, especially Hearst and Eaton, will receive input to restrict OB access at higher grades.

Is that a real option? Would that make much of a difference if in 5 years the schools are 50% IB in the higher grades?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

Impossible, this would make Wilson Deal's private outlet...

I believe that what will happen is that Deal feeders, especially Hearst and Eaton, will receive input to restrict OB access at higher grades.

Is that a real option? Would that make much of a difference if in 5 years the schools are 50% IB in the higher grades?

It is the only option. 75% of Deal's OB population comes from Eaton and Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

Impossible, this would make Wilson Deal's private outlet...

I believe that what will happen is that Deal feeders, especially Hearst and Eaton, will receive input to restrict OB access at higher grades.

Is that a real option? Would that make much of a difference if in 5 years the schools are 50% IB in the higher grades?

It is the only option. 75% of Deal's OB population comes from Eaton and Hearst.

And Shepherd and Bancroft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

That was in the original proposal, you may recall. Hardy was to feed to a TBD high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, next on the chopping block will be Hardy getting zoned out of Wilson. Wouldn't be shocking.

Impossible, this would make Wilson Deal's private outlet...

I believe that what will happen is that Deal feeders, especially Hearst and Eaton, will receive input to restrict OB access at higher grades.

Eaton under the new plan is no longer a Deal feeder, although that could still change. DCPS has ZERO incentive to reduce OOB enrollment in WOTP schools and would be content if Hearst remains (and Eaton becomes) an overwhelmingly OOB school. People want access to WOTP elementary schools and Hearst and Eaton provide that political safety valve for the chancellor and the mayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

During the boundary process she called for a meeting with her Ward 3 constituents at Chevy Chase Library. We were about 40 parents in total, and I recall only one parent from Eaton attending , from the PTO (and he was not even a Ward 3 resident).

Maybe someone from Eaton can respond, but I thought they had a petition with many, many signatures?

It takes nothing to collect signatures. Meeting with your voters who point fingers and tell you that they will hold you accountable for boundary unfavorable outcomes (such as a group of Stoddert + Mann/Hardy parents) is a different things. I was surprised by their number and cohesion. Then there was a smaller delegation (I was part of) from Oyster. I recall just one parent from Eaton.

I think this is why DCPS put Eaton on the chopping block. While many Eaton families are riled up (and the petition had hundreds of signatures), the number of actual Ward 3 voters among Eaton parents is far less than at all other W3 elementary schools that feed to Deal, save Hearst. (And taking Hearst out of Deal, which is at least half-mile closer to Deal than Eaton is, was even more gerrymandering than the folks in the mayor's office normally tolerate). And among OOB students, a number have separate neighborhood feeder rights to Deal anyway and DCPS figured that the rest wouldn't rock the boat so much. Because Eaton's enrollment is so diffused among various wards, there is no one throat for parents to choke, other than the mayor herself.

[Anonymous]

The pro-Crestwood/16th street heights gerrymandering looks ridiculous, and is counter-productive to school crowding at Deal/Wilson; but the deal/wilson map was always ridiculous and overcrowding has always been a problem at those schools. The Mayor's decision simply amounts to political pandering and/or payback, and could you really have expected a principled stance from Bowser, given her record of wind-vane politics?

Improving the city's schools has always been a "long game" and her decision simply delays progress (especially around the neighborhoods of Crestwood and 16th Street Heights) for a while longer. But progress is being made, slowly. I DO think the residents who lobbied the Mayor to extend grandfathering should be called out for throwing their neighbors under the bus; but I blame Bowser for that cop-out more than I do Crestwood and 16th Street heights. Maybe we'll get a more forceful, creative Mayor next time who will push for better.

Also, perhaps we'll see more positive development out of the Charters industry, to relieve pressure on Deal/Wilson and provide another viable option east of 16th Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Crestwood/16th street heights gerrymandering looks ridiculous, and is counter-productive to school crowding at Deal/Wilson; but the deal/wilson map was always ridiculous and overcrowding has always been a problem at those schools. The Mayor's decision simply amounts to political pandering and/or payback, and could you really have expected a principled stance from Bowser, given her record of wind-vane politics?

Improving the city's schools has always been a "long game" and her decision simply delays progress (especially around the neighborhoods of Crestwood and 16th Street Heights) for a while longer. But progress is being made, slowly. I DO think the residents who lobbied the Mayor to extend grandfathering should be called out for throwing their neighbors under the bus; but I blame Bowser for that cop-out more than I do Crestwood and 16th Street heights. Maybe we'll get a more forceful, creative Mayor next time who will push for better.

Also, perhaps we'll see more positive development out of the Charters industry, to relieve pressure on Deal/Wilson and provide another viable option east of 16th Street.

How did they throw their neighbors under the bus? We don't even really know WHEN MacFarland is going to open. This all may have been for nothing anyway.