DME Kicks Off DCPS Boundary Review; Changes Expected for 2015-16 School Year

[Anonymous]

When property values in DC have shown growth that few metro areas have seen, I seriously doubt that DC leaders will purposely create the political career-ending firestorm that would ensue if they remove neighborhoods from the boundaries for good schools (Deal; Wilson). If DCPS is serious about its mantra of continuity for families I have to also believe they must grandfather in children (and their siblings) who are already attending a certain feeder pattern, which will take years to accomplish. Whatever this Board comes back with next year in its report, if it does intend to make serious changes that plan better also include a well defined plan for building a new middle school or two that will be attractive enough to families to make them forget how mad they are that they got boundaried out of Deal. We are not in-boundary for Deal so I don't have a dog in this fight. My feeder school is Hardy, which I still hold out hope for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The critical issue is getting enough students with parents earning six figures, motivated or not.

BINGO!!!!! I'm beginning to think that's the only reason Murch, Jenney, LF work

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry you think it's vindictiveness. Grandfathering will obviously occur, as has been promised many times, and I don't think we'll change people's minds who have their kid at Deal with an eye toward Wilson. This process is not for peope who are only in the system for 5 more years as clearly we only revisit assignment patterns every 40-50 years or so.

People on that lip of Mt. Pleasant, Crestwood, and west of 16th St. NW east of the Park might say that they need continued access of right to Deal and Wilson, but they clearly are using the lottery en masse if they are using DCPS elementaries at all because their children are not enrolled at West, Powell, Brightwood and other schools that should serve their neighborhoods, though apparently they are enrolling at Bancroft and Shepherd. If they will use the lottery at elementary ages to follow their preferred pattern, let these parents do it at older ages. To be cynical, apparently they will do so no matter what happens, so why do we even take them into account?

Look there is an opportunity here. McFarland is closed but demand in that area is increasing as seen at the elementary level. The school can be reopened and remade into whatever people in that area want it to be, I truly believe that. Roosevelt is about to be entirely rebuilt. What programs should go there if it is to attract Crestwood families?

If you want a particular program, you can try to get it put in there. But if these opportunities to shape these schools exist and people still insist on avoiding the local schools and going across the Park, I think their justifications are about uneasiness about the children who live in the rest of the City. And that is unfortunate, as a real income mix lives in the area and is increasing and good diverse schools can come from that if we choose it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they remove the OOB right to feed to Deal and Wilson - how would they treat kids who are say in 4th or 5th grade in 2015, as an OOB student at a WOTP feeder school? Could they just yank Deal that easily? Or is it more likely that those kids would get grandfathered in? I know that it is hard to guess - but am curious what peoples thoughts are on this issue?

If you want to preserve that right for your child, that is why you need to be vocal during this process. Cutting those students out of the feeder pattern completely implodes the DCPS claim that it provides a continuous pathway. The numbers of OOB children attending the schools that feed to Deal has been going down each and every year, which means fewer and fewer OOB kids are attending Deal (at 30% now). It seems unreasonable and completely unfair to tell OOB families at Deal feeder schools that they are out in the cold come 6th grade...particularly when those children who attended WotP elementaries as OOB students provided those schools with what it needed...bodies in seats to maximize their budgets.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry you think it's vindictiveness. Grandfathering will obviously occur, as has been promised many times, and I don't think we'll change people's minds who have their kid at Deal with an eye toward Wilson. This process is not for peope who are only in the system for 5 more years as clearly we only revisit assignment patterns every 40-50 years or so.

People on that lip of Mt. Pleasant, Crestwood, and west of 16th St. NW east of the Park might say that they need continued access of right to Deal and Wilson, but they clearly are using the lottery en masse if they are using DCPS elementaries at all because their children are not enrolled at West, Powell, Brightwood and other schools that should serve their neighborhoods, though apparently they are enrolling at Bancroft and Shepherd. If they will use the lottery at elementary ages to follow their preferred pattern, let these parents do it at older ages. To be cynical, apparently they will do so no matter what happens, so why do we even take them into account?

Look there is an opportunity here. McFarland is closed but demand in that area is increasing as seen at the elementary level. The school can be reopened and remade into whatever people in that area want it to be, I truly believe that. Roosevelt is about to be entirely rebuilt. What programs should go there if it is to attract Crestwood families?

If you want a particular program, you can try to get it put in there. But if these opportunities to shape these schools exist and people still insist on avoiding the local schools and going across the Park, I think their justifications are about uneasiness about the children who live in the rest of the City. And that is unfortunate, as a real income mix lives in the area and is increasing and good diverse schools can come from that if we choose it.

This is all well and good, but still does not explain how redistricting Crestwood helps solve the problem of overcrowding. At best, Crestwood is a sideshow. What is your solution for actually reducing overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

We agree that Crestwood is a sideshow, but permitting it to maintain its existing feeder pattern while others are cut is not good policy. The point is that many will need to be cut, Crestwood included.

NIMBY is not policy, and that's all you're doing here.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

This is all well and good, but still does not explain how redistricting Crestwood helps solve the problem of overcrowding.

Did you actually read your statement? Seriously. It's unclear how reducing a few students currently feeding into Deal helps solve the problem? It's not unclear at all. Literally. You're being blinded by your desire to maintain all of your home's value. That's understandable, but that's still all that's going on here.

[Anonymous]

Do you want to work on a DC wide feeder solution? I would totally join you on that.

[Anonymous]

If overcrowding is your watchword, think of what creates it. Growth within boundaries, surely. Families deciding against their inbound options. People looking for better things elsewhere.

I think creating better options outside of the crowded schools is clearly part of the solution. Part of that is ensuring a good income and class and parental educational attainment mix at schools. You get that with both sticks and carrots, realistically. Assigning west of 16th/east of Park families eastward is a positive in that regard then, and not a sideshow.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:We agree that Crestwood is a sideshow, but permitting it to maintain its existing feeder pattern while others are cut is not good policy. The point is that many will need to be cut, Crestwood included.

NIMBY is not policy, and that's all you're doing here.

Actually, as far as my personal backyard is concerned, I don't have strong concerns. I don't feel like being redistricted out of Deal and Wilson would have that much personal impact. I've merely been discussing this from the viewpoint of likely policy. I think redistricting Crestwood offers little of benefit and comes at great political cost. Therefore, I think it makes it unlikely, though not impossible.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

This is all well and good, but still does not explain how redistricting Crestwood helps solve the problem of overcrowding.

Did you actually read your statement? Seriously. It's unclear how reducing a few students currently feeding into Deal helps solve the problem? It's not unclear at all. Literally. You're being blinded by your desire to maintain all of your home's value. That's understandable, but that's still all that's going on here.

I really feel that if people are going to argue about my motivations they should disclose their own neighborhood and current schools so that I can offer similar analysis of their own motivations. But, even better, people should avoid such judgements altogether and just discuss facts. I've now been concerned about my real estate values, of being a NIMBY, and not being welcome to kids from the rest of the city. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of such accusations from anonymous people.

Here is a fact: If you remove a handful of students from a school with a significant overcrowding problem, you still have an overcrowding problem. Maybe you can find enough marginal solutions to resolve the issue. But, I think the political reality makes that unlikely. The marginal solutions offer little to solve the problem individually, but each come at a high political cost. I think it it unlikely that policymakers will opt for multiples changes in which the political cost-benefit is extremely negative. If restricting Crestwood solved the problem, it might be worth the political cost. But, since that's not the case, it seems very unlikely to me.

[Anonymous]

What would the political impact on Crestwood be? Would people really care? How many? If your kid is at Landon Or NCS, will you care about Deal?

[Anonymous]

I'll pull back the veil a little: my child attends one of the DCPS schools you probably lotteries to get your child out of. And it's a pity. The school is great but could use more committed middle class familoes .

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What would the political impact on Crestwood be? Would people really care? How many? If your kid is at Landon Or NCS, will you care about Deal?

This is a good question and I might be attributing more political impact than truly exists. But, my best guess is that there are three categories of opposition: 1) those who have kids there now or are likely to go there in the future (not a huge numbrer); 2) people whose kids went there and who put a large value on traditional and are sensitive to being slighted (a larger number); and 3) those concerned about real estate values (a concern I think may be overwrought and one that I personally don't share, but this is the largest number). The combined impact of these groups may be enough to stir up those who otherwise wouldn't care. If that happens, the political impact is significant. But, if any part of my analysis is wrong, then there would be little political cost.

[Anonymous]

I think Crestwood, Shepherd Park and 16th Street Heights and Mount Pleasant (kids going to Bancroft) will get booted out of Deal/Wilson feeder patterns. It will help to bring higher SES kids to lower performing schools and create the sort of mix that helps to level the playing field for all of DC's kids. The more SES kids are in these "lower performing" schools, the more people with influence will feel obligated to step in and make sure resources are being provided to kids that have long done without. This is a win-win for people who truly care about the disserved in the greater DC community.