Grosso comes out against a stand alone middle school for Shaw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Calling out DCPS's neglect of Cardozo is not mistreating Cardozo or being condescending. It is advocating FOR Cardozo and its families. Cardozo Middle is tiny and has a high percentage of ELLs, so it's hard for it to advocate for itself. Feeder elementary parents are stakeholders and can claim a seat at the table. This has involved some hard conversations about the mistreatment of the middle school by downtown and by the Cardozo principal herself. But speaking up about it is the right thing to do.

Is the Cardozo principal out next year? We must make it clear that the new school leader needs to be invested in improving the middle school.

[Anonymous]

Someone is mischaracterizing Banneker's population - it isn't a "middle class." For context:

Banneker - 20% at risk, Title 1

SWW - 12% at risk, not Title 1

Wilson - 24% at-risk, not Title 1

Ellington - 27% at risk, not Title 1,

McKinley Tech - 37% at risk, Title 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone is mischaracterizing Banneker's population - it isn't a "middle class." For context:

Banneker - 20% at risk, Title 1

SWW - 12% at risk, not Title 1

Wilson - 24% at-risk, not Title 1

Ellington - 27% at risk, not Title 1,

McKinley Tech - 37% at risk, Title 1

See how it looks compared to Cardozo Middle though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone is mischaracterizing Banneker's population - it isn't a "middle class." For context:

Banneker - 20% at risk, Title 1

SWW - 12% at risk, not Title 1

Wilson - 24% at-risk, not Title 1

Ellington - 27% at risk, not Title 1,

McKinley Tech - 37% at risk, Title 1

See how it looks compared to Cardozo Middle though.

Apples to oranges and different grade bands. The public data for Cardozo combines HS and MS. No way to break out unless you are OSSE/DCPS.

[Anonymous]

This story points out many of the issues with schools in DC.

1) The school system needs to keep its mouth shut about schools getting new buildings until things are about to move.
Having been through the Bridges building debacle, the bait and switch and political fights around buildings could be avoided if this were treated as an administrative matter rather than a community decision.

2) Long range planning needs to happen, but it's hard in a city where major changes in students expected can happen at the drop of a hat. Will my family move to Maryland? Maybe. But probably not. DCPS has no idea if we should be part of their planning or not. I don't either.

3) Brookland Middle School is a case study in the reasons why throwing a ton of money at a middle school in quickly gentrifying neighborhood does little to attract high SES parents. There is no reason to expect a Shaw middle school would turn out differently than Brookland has so far.

4) Banneker is a good school. Resourcing them with a better building and/or location is a good idea.

5) To exclude kids with 504s from test-in schools on the basis of a 504 alone is illegal and shouldn't be happening. There should be objective criteria. It's also short-sighted as having a 504 means the parents are clued in to their kids' needs and not in denial about them, in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the Grosso quote. Why really does the neighborhood get to say "NAH" to Cardozo?

Now just to muddle the message I would say this: I don't want a 6-12 campus for my kids. It's about high schoolers mixing with middle schoolers and the problems that adolescents have with each other. That doesn't seem like it was much of the discussion. My neighborhood schools are adjacent - Roosevelt and MacFarland - but the separation is good enough for me. Cardozo should be able to show at least as much ability to keep the grade echelons separate if they want parents to get excited about their 11 year olds going there.

Parents say NAH because DCPS is saying NAH to improving Cardozo.

This!
12% of Cardozo students are proficient in reading and 6% in math. DCPS parents are moving or paying for private or going to charters to avoid it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This story points out many of the issues with schools in DC.

1) The school system needs to keep its mouth shut about schools getting new buildings until things are about to move.
Having been through the Bridges building debacle, the bait and switch and political fights around buildings could be avoided if this were treated as an administrative matter rather than a community decision.

2) Long range planning needs to happen, but it's hard in a city where major changes in students expected can happen at the drop of a hat. Will my family move to Maryland? Maybe. But probably not. DCPS has no idea if we should be part of their planning or not. I don't either.

3) Brookland Middle School is a case study in the reasons why throwing a ton of money at a middle school in quickly gentrifying neighborhood does little to attract high SES parents. There is no reason to expect a Shaw middle school would turn out differently than Brookland has so far.

4) Banneker is a good school. Resourcing them with a better building and/or location is a good idea.

5) To exclude kids with 504s from test-in schools on the basis of a 504 alone is illegal and shouldn't be happening. There should be objective criteria. It's also short-sighted as having a 504 means the parents are clued in to their kids' needs and not in denial about them, in many cases.

Brookland Middle was screwed over when DCPS gave it a principal without the right experience to know how to lead it. With a better principal it will improve. The active parents at the feeder schools don't yet have kids of age, but this will come in time. Look at Stuart-Hobson, Eliot-Hine, and Jefferson. All these same defeatist things were said as an excuse to not invest in the school. But high-SES parents fought for better resources and now some are enrolling. The same can happen at Brookland and Shaw if DCPS would stop making excuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IT isn't surprising that Grosso made this point in the WPost article. It's completely consistent with what he said at every budget hearing.

It is also consistent with what he has said in the past regarding Capital Hill middle schools. Made the same comment about Brent parents in particular not being willing to attend Jefferson a couple years back.

As a parent, that comment, coming from a non-parent, makes my blood boil and my family does not live IB for Brent OR Cardozo. If I wanted to transform a school, I would have become an educator. All children in Washington DC should have effective, safe, up-to-building code public schools to attend. People in OSSE and DCPS and DCPCS should do their jobs or they should leave.

[Anonymous]

For those saying Shaw parents are not fighting to improve Cardozo: (1) please know that until just a few months ago, Shaw parents thought Cardozo MS was temporary; (2) some of us are indeed fighting to improve Cardozo MS; (3) the Mayor is the one who pitted communities against one another and I guess her strategy worked. Really too bad all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story points out many of the issues with schools in DC.

1) The school system needs to keep its mouth shut about schools getting new buildings until things are about to move.
Having been through the Bridges building debacle, the bait and switch and political fights around buildings could be avoided if this were treated as an administrative matter rather than a community decision.

2) Long range planning needs to happen, but it's hard in a city where major changes in students expected can happen at the drop of a hat. Will my family move to Maryland? Maybe. But probably not. DCPS has no idea if we should be part of their planning or not. I don't either.

3) Brookland Middle School is a case study in the reasons why throwing a ton of money at a middle school in quickly gentrifying neighborhood does little to attract high SES parents. There is no reason to expect a Shaw middle school would turn out differently than Brookland has so far.

4) Banneker is a good school. Resourcing them with a better building and/or location is a good idea.

5) To exclude kids with 504s from test-in schools on the basis of a 504 alone is illegal and shouldn't be happening. There should be objective criteria. It's also short-sighted as having a 504 means the parents are clued in to their kids' needs and not in denial about them, in many cases.

Brookland Middle was screwed over when DCPS gave it a principal without the right experience to know how to lead it. With a better principal it will improve. The active parents at the feeder schools don't yet have kids of age, but this will come in time. Look at Stuart-Hobson, Eliot-Hine, and Jefferson. All these same defeatist things were said as an excuse to not invest in the school. But high-SES parents fought for better resources and now some are enrolling. The same can happen at Brookland and Shaw if DCPS would stop making excuses.

Brookland MS is improving, just slowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IT isn't surprising that Grosso made this point in the WPost article. It's completely consistent with what he said at every budget hearing.

It is also consistent with what he has said in the past regarding Capital Hill middle schools. Made the same comment about Brent parents in particular not being willing to attend Jefferson a couple years back.

As a parent, that comment, coming from a non-parent, makes my blood boil and my family does not live IB for Brent OR Cardozo. If I wanted to transform a school, I would have become an educator. All children in Washington DC should have effective, safe, up-to-building code public schools to attend. People in OSSE and DCPS and DCPCS should do their jobs or they should leave.

This. ALL kids deserve an adequate school building. It isn't something you get as a reward for attracting high-SES kids. It isn't something you get as a reward for refusing IEPs and 504s. It is a basic right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IT isn't surprising that Grosso made this point in the WPost article. It's completely consistent with what he said at every budget hearing.

It is also consistent with what he has said in the past regarding Capital Hill middle schools. Made the same comment about Brent parents in particular not being willing to attend Jefferson a couple years back.

As a parent, that comment, coming from a non-parent, makes my blood boil and my family does not live IB for Brent OR Cardozo. If I wanted to transform a school, I would have become an educator. All children in Washington DC should have effective, safe, up-to-building code public schools to attend. People in OSSE and DCPS and DCPCS should do their jobs or they should leave.

This. ALL kids deserve an adequate school building. It isn't something you get as a reward for attracting high-SES kids. It isn't something you get as a reward for refusing IEPs and 504s. It is a basic right.

Of course they do. Is that at issue here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IT isn't surprising that Grosso made this point in the WPost article. It's completely consistent with what he said at every budget hearing.

It is also consistent with what he has said in the past regarding Capital Hill middle schools. Made the same comment about Brent parents in particular not being willing to attend Jefferson a couple years back.

As a parent, that comment, coming from a non-parent, makes my blood boil and my family does not live IB for Brent OR Cardozo. If I wanted to transform a school, I would have become an educator. All children in Washington DC should have effective, safe, up-to-building code public schools to attend. People in OSSE and DCPS and DCPCS should do their jobs or they should leave.

This. ALL kids deserve an adequate school building. It isn't something you get as a reward for attracting high-SES kids. It isn't something you get as a reward for refusing IEPs and 504s. It is a basic right.

Of course they do. Is that at issue here?

Yes. It is often said that high-SES parents still won't enroll so there is no point in improving the building. Now, it is true that an adrquate building is only ONE piece of the puzzle (also need a competent principal, good teachers, and adequate behavior and academic support for kids at all levels). But a nice building should be provided for kids regardless of who enrolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if DCPS will get in trouble for allowing application schools to exclude special needs students. Could be a lawsuit or a loss of federal funding.

http://www.aje-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ODCA.Mendelson.Grosso.5.24.19-1.pdf

Wow. ZERO IEPs at Walls and Banneker? As the mom of an elementary school kid with HFA who is above grade-level, that's really disturbing.

[Anonymous]

The council gave Shaw to Banneker. [snip] ..let's figure out what to do with Shaw middle schoolers and how to find THEM a great experience too.


How exactly did they "earn" it? Have Cardozo kids done something wrong and failed to "earn" an adequate school?

You are conflating a physical building with an experience — and hoping readers won't notice.

Try harder.