Feeding Bancroft and Shepherd across park undermines efforts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

dcmom wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Bancroft/CHEC is that it gives no options for IB parents who don't want dual language. The net effect of these proposals will be to heighten a pattern that already exists. High SES/educated families in Mt P send their kids to Eaton (and Hearst) OOB. With mt pleasant continuing to feed Deal/Wilson, and IB Eaton families stuck with Hardy, you'll see more MtP families at Eaton-- thus keeping Eaton's scores up while IB parents start bailing at 3rd, 4th and 5th. Then the OOB Eaton but IB Deal MtP families will switch back to Deal for MS.

If bancroft/CHEC doesn't make sense, then having te two CHEC feeder schools be non-dual language makes even less sense.

This has been covered in other threads. There is a logical flaw in assuming that CHEC should stay bilingual and then asking why it doesn't have dual language feeders.

What you should ask instead is why CHEC's principal converted the school to bilingualism when she knew that the feeders were English-only. As covered in other threads, her reasons are her own. Apparently this was not endorsed by DCPS or DME which is why neither DCPS nor DME have made any moves to consolidate dual-langauge schools as feeders to CHEC, and have even, in the case of DME, proposed an entirely new bilingual MS program at McFarland.

I forgive anyone who doesn't know the past history of CHEC!! It's an odd history. But you need to understand it in order to understand why the status quo exists and why absolutely no-one serious has proposed that it suddenly become the MS for some or all of the DCPS dual language ESs. Not DCPS leadership, not the DME, not any politicians have proposed this. They may not be able to fully explain in public the reasons for their reluctance, which is why we come to this anonymous forum for explanations.

One possible solution is obvious: once the current principal leaves (she's been there for 30 years?) CHEC can be converted back to English programming and can use teaching assistants to handle the needs of ESL students. Simple.

Not being familiar with those other threads, I'll bite. Why did CHEC's principal convert to bilingualism? What is the past history of CHEC you're referencing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random other piece of information about CHEC. When they started the dual immersion program in the MS they did not really care about the feeder pattern because their goal was to start kids in dual immersion as 6th graders. Admin "bragged" that they could make dual immersion work starting in MS even though almost all of the other programs they could find across the country started earlier.

I wonder how successful they are with that approach? I"m almost certain kids aren't attending who didn't have any prior Spanish instruction. Maybe the goal was to make it an "Hispanic" only middle school considering the demographics of the neighborhood.

Here's an insider's take on CHEC (filtered through me). The place is a mess. The principal is well-liked by the teachers, but the Vice Principal is hated, despised, loathed. Teachers cannot understand why the Principal doesn't see this. Is it good cop, bad cop?

Regardless, the school BLEEDS staff. I believe that 25% of the teachers left within the first two weeks, and the attrition continues throughout the year.

DCPS is surely aware of the strains this staffing problem places upon the system. (Oddly, they've done nothing either.) My guess (this is my guess, not the still-present teacher I'm quoting) is that DCPS is waiting for the Principal (I can't spell her name off-hand) to retire and then they'll clean house. Any plans while she's still in charge will go nowhere since CHEC is her baby.

Principal is Maria Tukeva, and she is in her 60s. Not sure why DCPS doesn't feel it can rein her in, but perhaps they just figure she will retire soon. Sucks for the kids who are there. The blog the former CHEC teacher wrote about how awful it was to work there sticks with me.

PP said that DCPS can't force an IB native Spanish speaker to go there. Where else will they go? Right now, I imagine the other choice is Cardozo, but when Cardozo doesn't have a middle school, where will the non-Spanish speakers go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random other piece of information about CHEC. When they started the dual immersion program in the MS they did not really care about the feeder pattern because their goal was to start kids in dual immersion as 6th graders. Admin "bragged" that they could make dual immersion work starting in MS even though almost all of the other programs they could find across the country started earlier.

I wonder how successful they are with that approach? I"m almost certain kids aren't attending who didn't have any prior Spanish instruction. Maybe the goal was to make it an "Hispanic" only middle school considering the demographics of the neighborhood.

Here's an insider's take on CHEC (filtered through me). The place is a mess. The principal is well-liked by the teachers, but the Vice Principal is hated, despised, loathed. Teachers cannot understand why the Principal doesn't see this. Is it good cop, bad cop?

Regardless, the school BLEEDS staff. I believe that 25% of the teachers left within the first two weeks, and the attrition continues throughout the year.

DCPS is surely aware of the strains this staffing problem places upon the system. (Oddly, they've done nothing either.) My guess (this is my guess, not the still-present teacher I'm quoting) is that DCPS is waiting for the Principal (I can't spell her name off-hand) to retire and then they'll clean house. Any plans while she's still in charge will go nowhere since CHEC is her baby.

Principal is Maria Tukeva, and she is in her 60s. Not sure why DCPS doesn't feel it can rein her in, but perhaps they just figure she will retire soon. Sucks for the kids who are there. The blog the former CHEC teacher wrote about how awful it was to work there sticks with me.

PP said that DCPS can't force an IB native Spanish speaker to go there. Where else will they go? Right now, I imagine the other choice is Cardozo, but when Cardozo doesn't have a middle school, where will the non-Spanish speakers go?

Sorry, bolded part should read "native English speaker"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against the Shepard Park or Bancroft neighborhoods. I want them to have great schools. And (unfortunately) I'm not in any neighborhood that benefits from any of these boundary changes, so I've got no personal stake in the outcome. But I get frustrated when I see people (like some PPs) making strident demands, and hurling insults at anyone who dares to disagree, while failing to present any logical support for their positions. Maybe you can provide the logical support that some other PPs have omitted?

PP here, I agree with the need to choose logic over invective. Yes, I can make a stab at it, but there is so much to say, so here is my best effort for now. The data is all from DCPS school profiles and the DME materials that you can see in the sticky thread.

First off, there are a few key facts that not everyone seems to know. The first fact is that Deal currently has the following seven feeder schools: Bancroft, Eaton, Janney, Murch, Hearst, Lafayette, and Shepherd. Eaton currently has a dual feed to Hardy and Deal. The DME proposal is to make Eaton a Hardy-only school. I think there are some PPs up thread who believe that Bancroft/Shepherd are being added - not true.

Second, a lot of people don't realize the extent of the poverty in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood. There are hundreds or thousands of people living below the poverty line in rent-controlled apartments. The fertility rate among those households is higher than that of the million-dollar rowhouse demographic. The majority of the "age-appropriate in-boundary child population" of Mount Pleasant for ES, a key DME metric, is both latino and low-income. Bancroft is, consequently, approx 70% FARM and 70% latino overall and the graduating class is 90-100% latino and FARM, varies year by year. Deal MS is 21% FARM, or 85 students per class, and 14% latino, or 57 students per class. Bancroft graduating class is 45. Thus, Bancroft accounts for half of the FARM students at Deal and 80% of the latinos at Deal. Shepherd is more affluent, only 33% FARM, but it is 4% white, 10% latino, 80% black. Shepherd accounts for perhaps 25% of the black students at Deal, and some number of FARM. If you remove Bancroft and Shepherd from Deal then Deal becomes <10% FARM, <25% black and <2% latino in a city school system that is >75% poor and racial minority. Note that Bancroft and especially Shepherd have significant OOB populations but, crucially, the demographics would not change much if they became all IB, especially Bancroft. This is a big contrast with WOTP schools where diversity generally comes via OOB lottery.

Third, there is a DCUM legend that Eaton is very racially and economically diverse. True, when you are comparing with Janney. But Eaton actually has the same demographics as Deal. Here are the [Eaton/Deal] percentage numbers: [17/21] FARM, [29/31] black, [13/13] latino. Thus, if you remove Eaton from Deal, the Deal demographics are unchanged (and if you add Eaton to Hardy then Hardy becomes instantly whiter and more affluent - I'll let you look up the Hardy data). Plus, Eaton is two third OOB and much of Eaton's diversity comes from OOB. The IB neighborhood for Eaton is affluent. So as more IB parents choose Eaton every year, which we are observing, the school's diversity, and its diversity contribution to any MS, declines.

Ok, with those three facts in mind, here is the logical progression that you go through in deciding how to reduce overcrowding at Deal:

1) Incremental change is the best approach to education policy. This rules out big ideas like choice sets, removing Hardy from Wilson, removing 3-4 feeders from Deal and adding 2-3 more for academic programmatic reasons, etc. You stick with the by-right geographical feeder model used across America and try to disturb the status quo as little as possible and solve the actual boundary/assignment problems, not aim for some utopia. The actual boundary/assignment problem regarding Deal is minor overcrowding. Deal is currently 4% (four percent) over capacity but could get worse without action.

2) In the traditional by-right geographic model you need to ensure that the boundary of the receiving school equals the aggregated boundaries of the feeder schools, and every school has exactly one by-right geographical feed (optional programmatic feeds are a separate issue). This means that you remove Oyster, Crestwood from Deal and remove SW DC from Wilson. Obviously, not popular with those parents! But the rationale is that with too many by-right choices, attendance is unpredictable and this hurts planning. This is the same rationale for assigning one school where currently 2-3 are assigned due to school closures (parts of Bloomingdale, Columbia Heights). BTW this gets you a maximum 16% reduction at Deal. Maximum because that's the % of non-feeder students at Deal, though some could come from within feeder boundaries, attending private or charter.

3) Eliminating OOB feeder rights to Deal is not only unpopular among those who benefit; it actually would not work. WOTP schools become more and more IB every year. Unless you remove a feeder or reduce the physical capacity of several feeders, the OOB just get eventually replaced by IB and the crowding is not solved. Amazing how often this simple point is ignored in DCUM debates.

4) Reducing physical capacity at feeders means demolishing buildings that you previously paid to build or expand. This is crazy, plus, the IB kid population in some areas is growing. So you need to remove a feeder or feeders, again, the minimum possible. In a geographical by-right system you should remove a school that is on the border with another MS, except arguably where the border is Rock Creek Park. This rules out Murch, Hearst, Lafayette and leaves you with, counterclockwise order, Janney, Eaton, Bancroft, and Shepherd.

5) When deciding which feeder to remove, many factors come into play, including the size and diversity of the school...

Janney, with its 90%+ non-FARM and 90%+ IB, is a political powerhouse, organized like the Borg, I mean that in a respectful way. Did you see how many Janney parents were active in the process when the only thing realistically at stake for them was a 10% OOB set aside? But politics aside, it's also by far the largest, sending 75 to Deal. Removing Janney is overkill. As discussed above, Bancroft is very poor and Bancroft and Shepherd are both very racially diverse. Eaton, less so. Thus on the diversity criterion, you maintain Bancroft and Shepherd at Deal. Is there also a political consideration for this? Bancroft and Shepherd do not have the same $$$ as Janney parents but those neighborhoods have a history of social justice activism and racial integration, reaching across racial and class lines to advocate for the common good. Indeed, this is a reason why some of us choose these neighborhoods in what can otherwise be a very segregated city. Whereas Eaton is affluent IB, like Janney, but two thirds OOB, very unlike Janney. Does this political stuff play a role? Who knows, maybe in the back of people's minds. But as you can see in this post, it's not necessary to jump to the political - there are enough policy reasons. What about civil rights law suits, as some have suggested, including most notably Catania? My bet is that Mount Pleasant and Shepherd Park would likely win, but hopefully it won't have to come to that.

6) ... and what other options those families will have.

If you remove Eaton from Deal, they get Hardy, which for some on DCUM is apparently a death sentence from the way people talk. I mean, did you hear, they wear uniforms at Hardy, shock horror! But by DC standards, Hardy is pretty darn good and getting better all the time (and, FWIW, more IB), and is under capacity. Hardy's boundary area is nearly 100% affluent, so it's just a matter of time for IB to replace OOB and, absent OOB set-aside, Hardy could easily be whiter and richer than Deal in the not too distant future. I don't say that as a good thing, just making an observation based on IB demographics. Remember that Post editorial about schools "flipping"? Hardy seems poised for this, because it is a geographical by-right school with relatively little IB poverty or racial diversity. If you remove Shepherd, we don't even know what they'd get - "New North" isn't built yet. For Bancroft, it would likely be CHEC.

So..... it's a difficult choice and not everyone will be happy, but this is the logic behind maintaining all the Deal feeders except Eaton, which goes to Hardy, and aligning the Deal boundaries with the combined boundaries of its feeders, and then doing the same for Wilson. You have done the minimum to reduce overcrowding at Deal and Wilson, you've done it according to the principles that you stated at the beginning of the process, and you have avoided any civil rights lawsuits that could result from making Deal even more white and affluent than it currently is, in an urban school system that is overwhelmingly racial minority and poor.

That's the logic, as far as I can tell. Feel free to critique!

[Anonymous]

12:43, I've read your post 3 times now. You make many interesting points, and I appreciate your input. Am I correct that your argument for why Bancroft & Shepard Park need to be granted access to Deal & Wilson is because you believe Bancroft & Shepard Park offer additional racial and economic diversity?

I see all your other commentary about other schools and neighborhoods. But I don't see any other arguments specific to Bancroft & Shepard Park. Please let me know if I missed any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random other piece of information about CHEC. When they started the dual immersion program in the MS they did not really care about the feeder pattern because their goal was to start kids in dual immersion as 6th graders. Admin "bragged" that they could make dual immersion work starting in MS even though almost all of the other programs they could find across the country started earlier.

I wonder how successful they are with that approach? I"m almost certain kids aren't attending who didn't have any prior Spanish instruction. Maybe the goal was to make it an "Hispanic" only middle school considering the demographics of the neighborhood.

Here's an insider's take on CHEC (filtered through me). The place is a mess. The principal is well-liked by the teachers, but the Vice Principal is hated, despised, loathed. Teachers cannot understand why the Principal doesn't see this. Is it good cop, bad cop?

Regardless, the school BLEEDS staff. I believe that 25% of the teachers left within the first two weeks, and the attrition continues throughout the year.

DCPS is surely aware of the strains this staffing problem places upon the system. (Oddly, they've done nothing either.) My guess (this is my guess, not the still-present teacher I'm quoting) is that DCPS is waiting for the Principal (I can't spell her name off-hand) to retire and then they'll clean house. Any plans while she's still in charge will go nowhere since CHEC is her baby.

Principal is Maria Tukeva, and she is in her 60s. Not sure why DCPS doesn't feel it can rein her in, but perhaps they just figure she will retire soon. Sucks for the kids who are there. The blog the former CHEC teacher wrote about how awful it was to work there sticks with me.

PP said that DCPS can't force an IB native Spanish speaker to go there. Where else will they go? Right now, I imagine the other choice is Cardozo, but when Cardozo doesn't have a middle school, where will the non-Spanish speakers go?

Sorry, bolded part should read "native English speaker"

Cardozo is now an Education Campus serving 6-12th graders.

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Cardozo+Education+Campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random other piece of information about CHEC. When they started the dual immersion program in the MS they did not really care about the feeder pattern because their goal was to start kids in dual immersion as 6th graders. Admin "bragged" that they could make dual immersion work starting in MS even though almost all of the other programs they could find across the country started earlier.

I wonder how successful they are with that approach? I"m almost certain kids aren't attending who didn't have any prior Spanish instruction. Maybe the goal was to make it an "Hispanic" only middle school considering the demographics of the neighborhood.

Here's an insider's take on CHEC (filtered through me). The place is a mess. The principal is well-liked by the teachers, but the Vice Principal is hated, despised, loathed. Teachers cannot understand why the Principal doesn't see this. Is it good cop, bad cop?

Regardless, the school BLEEDS staff. I believe that 25% of the teachers left within the first two weeks, and the attrition continues throughout the year.

DCPS is surely aware of the strains this staffing problem places upon the system. (Oddly, they've done nothing either.) My guess (this is my guess, not the still-present teacher I'm quoting) is that DCPS is waiting for the Principal (I can't spell her name off-hand) to retire and then they'll clean house. Any plans while she's still in charge will go nowhere since CHEC is her baby.

Principal is Maria Tukeva, and she is in her 60s. Not sure why DCPS doesn't feel it can rein her in, but perhaps they just figure she will retire soon. Sucks for the kids who are there. The blog the former CHEC teacher wrote about how awful it was to work there sticks with me.

PP said that DCPS can't force an IB native Spanish speaker to go there. Where else will they go? Right now, I imagine the other choice is Cardozo, but when Cardozo doesn't have a middle school, where will the non-Spanish speakers go?

Sorry, bolded part should read "native English speaker"

Cardozo is now an Education Campus serving 6-12th graders.

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Cardozo+Education+Campus

Right, but under the new proposal, it converts to a high school and the new center city MS takes its place. Right now, I'll bet non-dual language students who are IB for CHEC likely have the option to go to Cardozo instead. I'm wondering where they will go when Cardozo doesn't take middle school students anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:43, I've read your post 3 times now. You make many interesting points, and I appreciate your input. Am I correct that your argument for why Bancroft & Shepard Park need to be granted access to Deal & Wilson is because you believe Bancroft & Shepard Park offer additional racial and economic diversity?

I see all your other commentary about other schools and neighborhoods. But I don't see any other arguments specific to Bancroft & Shepard Park. Please let me know if I missed any.

Based on these words in bold: are you aware that Bancroft and Shepherd are already Deal feeders? No-one needs to make an argument why these schools should feed to Deal. They already do. The issue is how to solve over-crowding at Deal: do we need to shrink boundaries and remove a feeder school, and if so, which school. This is not an exercise in which we make a list of all elementary schools in DC and ask which should feed to Deal. It is the reverse - we begin with those that do currently feed and ask which, if any, should be removed.

let me know if I have misunderstood your question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:43, I've read your post 3 times now. You make many interesting points, and I appreciate your input. Am I correct that your argument for why Bancroft & Shepard Park need to be granted access to Deal & Wilson is because you believe Bancroft & Shepard Park offer additional racial and economic diversity?

I see all your other commentary about other schools and neighborhoods. But I don't see any other arguments specific to Bancroft & Shepard Park. Please let me know if I missed any.

Based on these words in bold: are you aware that Bancroft and Shepherd are already Deal feeders? No-one needs to make an argument why these schools should feed to Deal. They already do. The issue is how to solve over-crowding at Deal: do we need to shrink boundaries and remove a feeder school, and if so, which school. This is not an exercise in which we make a list of all elementary schools in DC and ask which should feed to Deal. It is the reverse - we begin with those that do currently feed and ask which, if any, should be removed.

let me know if I have misunderstood your question.

I should add, the best case scenario would be no feeder schools removed. Presumably if that were possible, the DME would have done it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:43, I've read your post 3 times now. You make many interesting points, and I appreciate your input. Am I correct that your argument for why Bancroft & Shepard Park need to be granted access to Deal & Wilson is because you believe Bancroft & Shepard Park offer additional racial and economic diversity?

I see all your other commentary about other schools and neighborhoods. But I don't see any other arguments specific to Bancroft & Shepard Park. Please let me know if I missed any.

Based on these words in bold: are you aware that Bancroft and Shepherd are already Deal feeders? No-one needs to make an argument why these schools should feed to Deal. They already do. The issue is how to solve over-crowding at Deal: do we need to shrink boundaries and remove a feeder school, and if so, which school. This is not an exercise in which we make a list of all elementary schools in DC and ask which should feed to Deal. It is the reverse - we begin with those that do currently feed and ask which, if any, should be removed.

let me know if I have misunderstood your question.

I'm not sure whether you've misunderstood or not, because you never answered. Can you please answer my question?: Are there any other persuasive arguments for why Bancroft & Shepard Park should feed to Wilson/Deal, besides added diversity they might offer?

To answer your question: Yes, I understand the current scenario, and the current proposal(s) for change. I also understand that there have not yet been any final decisions, so everything is still on the table. I'm just trying to understand why you think Bancroft & Shepard Park should feed to Wilson & Deal. You wrote, upthread, that there are many good reasons why, so I'm trying to list them.

[Anonymous]

14:53 again. Maybe one additional argument you're making is that they should feed Wilson/Deal because they were previously designated to feed Deal, and that prior designation gives them some position that cannot be changed. Is that your other argument?

[Anonymous]

I don't like grammar police as much as many of you but please PP, it's spelled Shepherd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:53 again. Maybe one additional argument you're making is that they should feed Wilson/Deal because they were previously designated to feed Deal, and that prior designation gives them some position that cannot be changed. Is that your other argument?

Take a look again at point (1) above: incremental change is better than radical change. If it ain't broke, we don't fix it. Bancroft, Shepherd and Eaton families are voting for Deal through their attendance choices, so here we have a situation where everyone is happy with their MS option. So we don't remove anyone unless we need to and have good reasons, and we try to apply rational criteria when we do have to choose which school(s) to remove.

Now it's me who is having a hard time understanding what you are advocating. Do you want to remove all seven Deal feeders and make Deal the by-right school for Capitol Hill? Do you want to open Deal to the whole city via lottery with no proximity preference?

If you don't agree with incremental change, then that's your right, but it's obviously a major principle underpinning this proposal and it's a direct result of the feedback the DME received. The message loud and clear was that people want incremental change, not radical change like choice sets or opening up Deal and Wilson to city-wide access or stripping Deal of multiple feeders for no reason that anyone can articulate.

Anyway, I took the time to lay out a detailed argument, and your response was just to keep asking the same question. If I haven't convinced you, so be it. You have not identified what your IB school is, or what you propose for Deal or what your views are on any aspect of the proposal. If you'd like to do that here, I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views, and more importantly, you should share them with the DME. Maybe you have some good ideas, or maybe you are simply upset about how the proposal affects you (or how it fails to help you), or maybe you are just killing a slow summer day on DCUM. I respect any of these motives! I just don't know which it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:43, I've read your post 3 times now. You make many interesting points, and I appreciate your input. Am I correct that your argument for why Bancroft & Shepard Park need to be granted access to Deal & Wilson is because you believe Bancroft & Shepard Park offer additional racial and economic diversity?

I see all your other commentary about other schools and neighborhoods. But I don't see any other arguments specific to Bancroft & Shepard Park. Please let me know if I missed any.

Based on these words in bold: are you aware that Bancroft and Shepherd are already Deal feeders? No-one needs to make an argument why these schools should feed to Deal. They already do. The issue is how to solve over-crowding at Deal: do we need to shrink boundaries and remove a feeder school, and if so, which school. This is not an exercise in which we make a list of all elementary schools in DC and ask which should feed to Deal. It is the reverse - we begin with those that do currently feed and ask which, if any, should be removed.

let me know if I have misunderstood your question.

I'm not sure whether you've misunderstood or not, because you never answered. Can you please answer my question?: Are there any other persuasive arguments for why Bancroft & Shepard Park should feed to Wilson/Deal, besides added diversity they might offer?

To answer your question: Yes, I understand the current scenario, and the current proposal(s) for change. I also understand that there have not yet been any final decisions, so everything is still on the table. I'm just trying to understand why you think Bancroft & Shepard Park should feed to Wilson & Deal. You wrote, upthread, that there are many good reasons why, so I'm trying to list them.

I am not the previous poster. However, I think that the questions have been answered very well. Keeping Bancroft and Shepherd as feeders into Deal and Wilson accomplish a variety of things. As mentioned, the schools already feed into Deal. This addresses predictability. These neighborhoods are fairly close to Deal (vs adding other neighborhoods that are currently not Deal feeders) and have transportation systems that support it (metro bus from Mount Pleasant). This addresses neighborhood schools - students will not be trekking across the city to go to school. Keeping Bancroft and Shepherd as feeders to Deal and Wilson will allow these schools to be racially and economically diverse. If you take Bancroft and Shepherd out, Deal and Wilson will be much much much less diverse and increase the the schools' segregation. This addresses the committee's priority of diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not the previous poster. However, I think that the questions have been answered very well. Keeping Bancroft and Shepherd as feeders into Deal and Wilson accomplish a variety of things. As mentioned, the schools already feed into Deal. This addresses predictability. These neighborhoods are fairly close to Deal (vs adding other neighborhoods that are currently not Deal feeders) and have transportation systems that support it (metro bus from Mount Pleasant). This addresses neighborhood schools - students will not be trekking across the city to go to school. Keeping Bancroft and Shepherd as feeders to Deal and Wilson will allow these schools to be racially and economically diverse. If you take Bancroft and Shepherd out, Deal and Wilson will be much much much less diverse and increase the the schools' segregation. This addresses the committee's priority of diversity.

Many thanks for the clear response. So I see these arguments:
1. Shepherd & Bancroft should feed to Wilson & Deal because they were previously slated to feed Deal, so linking them to Wilson & Deal would fit with the predictions/expectations of people living in those neighborhoods.
2. Shepherd & Bancroft should feed to Wilson & Deal because they are fairly close to Wilson & Deal (only 3-4 miles away), and there is public transportation.
3. Shepherd & Bancroft should feed to Wilson & Deal because their students could add to diversity at Wilson & Deal.
Did I miss any? Do you have others?

As for 15:21, you seem more interested in uncovering some secret motive or bias, so you can attack my position. Let me be clear: I've got no position yet on Bancroft & Shepherd Park. I think it's strange they maintained a link to Wilson & Deal, while other similarly situated neighborhoods lost their link, so I'm trying to figure out what justifies the link for Shepherd Park & Bancroft. But I'm really struggling to get straightforward answers from anyone. Have you got any other answers besides the ones 15:32 offered?