Deal Expansion

[Anonymous]

My guess is that in just a few years we will need more school capacity in Ward 3, even with the filling up of schools largely with in-boundaries kids. Forward-looking planning would start scouting either expansion sites or new school sites before they are critically needed -- one great elementary site would be the current Second District police HQ on Idaho Avenue, right by McLean Gardens. The existing building could be retrofitted as a school and some of its ample parking could be used for playgrounds. And large, "fortress" police stations -- as opposed to small, neighborhood centers -- are so 1970s.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
One reason might be the further you travel from Deal the less white the population. If Deal’s catchment area needs to be shrunk, it seems logical that it becomes less white. It doesn’t have to be intentional exclusion of anyone, just the way it works out.

And:

Anonymous wrote:Restricting a school to an immediate neighborhood boundary to stabilize its enrollment numbers can have the effect of limiting the diversity at a school without rascist intentions.

There are parts of Ward 4 and Ward 1 within the current Deal boundaries that are closer to the school itself than parts of Ward 3 that are within the current boundaries. Palisades -- one area that potentially would like to be added to the Deal boundaries is further from the school than almost any part of the current in-boundary neighborhoods. So, if you were redrawing the school zone on the basis of geographic closeness, most of the current East-of-the-Park areas would remain.

When modifying school boundaries, there are lots of variables that can effect decisions. If the only variables that matter to you are ones that end up eliminating minority enrollment, then I would suggest that your choice of variables is racist.

Here is a map of the middle school districts in case you are not familiar with them:

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/SCHOOLS/Boundary%20Maps%20-%202009/DCPS-Attendance-Zones-Middle-Schools-September-2009.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your elementary is Stoddert, Key, or Mann, go to Hardy. No way you get $25M for a new school.

Most of these students do not go to Deal and it is still overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One reason might be the further you travel from Deal the less white the population. If Deal’s catchment area needs to be shrunk, it seems logical that it becomes less white. It doesn’t have to be intentional exclusion of anyone, just the way it works out.

And:

Anonymous wrote:Restricting a school to an immediate neighborhood boundary to stabilize its enrollment numbers can have the effect of limiting the diversity at a school without rascist intentions.

There are parts of Ward 4 and Ward 1 within the current Deal boundaries that are closer to the school itself than parts of Ward 3 that are within the current boundaries. Palisades -- one area that potentially would like to be added to the Deal boundaries is further from the school than almost any part of the current in-boundary neighborhoods. So, if you were redrawing the school zone on the basis of geographic closeness, most of the current East-of-the-Park areas would remain.

When modifying school boundaries, there are lots of variables that can effect decisions. If the only variables that matter to you are ones that end up eliminating minority enrollment, then I would suggest that your choice of variables is racist.

Here is a map of the middle school districts in case you are not familiar with them:

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/SCHOOLS/Boundary%20Maps%20-%202009/DCPS-Attendance-Zones-Middle-Schools-September-2009.pdf

Admittedly, I didn't know the immediate neighborhood or its racial makeup when I responded to your over-generalized assertion that a change in school boundaries that results in less diversity is automatically racist.

If you had instead asserted that drawing diverse populations out despite their being in the.immediate neighborhood is overtly racist, I would probably agree .

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One reason might be the further you travel from Deal the less white the population. If Deal’s catchment area needs to be shrunk, it seems logical that it becomes less white. It doesn’t have to be intentional exclusion of anyone, just the way it works out.

And:

Anonymous wrote:Restricting a school to an immediate neighborhood boundary to stabilize its enrollment numbers can have the effect of limiting the diversity at a school without rascist intentions.

There are parts of Ward 4 and Ward 1 within the current Deal boundaries that are closer to the school itself than parts of Ward 3 that are within the current boundaries. Palisades -- one area that potentially would like to be added to the Deal boundaries is further from the school than almost any part of the current in-boundary neighborhoods. So, if you were redrawing the school zone on the basis of geographic closeness, most of the current East-of-the-Park areas would remain.

When modifying school boundaries, there are lots of variables that can effect decisions. If the only variables that matter to you are ones that end up eliminating minority enrollment, then I would suggest that your choice of variables is racist.

Here is a map of the middle school districts in case you are not familiar with them:

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/SCHOOLS/Boundary%20Maps%20-%202009/DCPS-Attendance-Zones-Middle-Schools-September-2009.pdf

The problem with your line of thinking is that Deal is close to the western border of DC. Areas in Wards Four & One are not hemmed in.

Certainly there should be some catchment area balancing between Hardy and Deal, but unless one advocates for a third middle school west of the park, the catchment area for Deal must move westward, and that means fewer Wards Four & One students, and thus, a whiter school.

Also, I am missing any the advocating for an ethnically homogenous cohort at Deal? How’d that issue get factored in here?

BTW, I’m a Ward Six parent whose kid is screwed for DCPS middle school and I don’t have a dog in this fight.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, since you oppose redistricting Deal and you also oppose a new school in Ward 3, how do you propose controlling the overcrowding at Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that in just a few years we will need more school capacity in Ward 3, even with the filling up of schools largely with in-boundaries kids. Forward-looking planning would start scouting either expansion sites or new school sites before they are critically needed -- one great elementary site would be the current Second District police HQ on Idaho Avenue, right by McLean Gardens. The existing building could be retrofitted as a school and some of its ample parking could be used for playgrounds. And large, "fortress" police stations -- as opposed to small, neighborhood centers -- are so 1970s.

I think that this is a great idea. Janney, Eaton & Hearst could feed into this new school and Deal could keep Bancroft, Lafayette, Murch & Shepard. Both schools could use OOB if capacity allows it. Some people are making this a fight about Key and Mann when really Deal will still have capacity issues even if those two school were to disappear tomorrow morning.

[Anonymous]

Also, I am missing any the advocating for an ethnically homogenous cohort at Deal? How’d that issue get factored in here?

Because I asserted several pages ago that the sure-fire way to halt overcrowding in Deal would be to re-draw its boundaries to bring them inward. It is indisputable that drawing a tighter circle or perfect square around Deal's address would reduce the absolute number of kids eligible to attend.

It is probable that if you did this, fewer people with dark complexions would be eligible to attend Deal as a matter of right.

Jeff correctly pointed out that a move like this would create a firestorm in certain circles.

It is OK to have all-white elementary schools, and it's OK to have all-black elementary, middle and high schools. It is not OK, I have now been told, to do anything to a neighborhood school that would reduce overcrowding conditions for the neighborhood children if doing so would result in a larger white population at that school.

I got it now.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, since you oppose redistricting Deal and you also oppose a new school in Ward 3, how do you propose controlling the overcrowding at Deal?

I don't oppose redistricting Deal. I oppose redistricting Deal in a manner that eliminates its diversity. DC already has a very segregated school system. We should avoid any actions that make it even more segregated. If the most intelligent solution is a new middle school, I don't think that middle school needs to be on the western edge of the city where it would naturally be a fully segregated school. It should be possible to find a more central location that would allow a full spectrum of racial and socio-economic groups to attend.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:When modifying school boundaries, there are lots of variables that can effect decisions. If the only variables that matter to you are ones that end up eliminating minority enrollment, then I would suggest that your choice of variables is racist.

Right, because correlation always proves causation. Especially when you know someone is a racist.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

I don't oppose redistricting Deal. I oppose redistricting Deal in a manner that eliminates its diversity. DC already has a very segregated school system. We should avoid any actions that make it even more segregated. If the most intelligent solution is a new middle school, I don't think that middle school needs to be on the western edge of the city where it would naturally be a fully segregated school. It should be possible to find a more central location that would allow a full spectrum of racial and socio-economic groups to attend.

That is a much better-reasoned explanation than reflexively calling people racists.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous

It is not OK, I have now been told, to do anything to a neighborhood school that would reduce overcrowding conditions for the neighborhood children if doing so would result in a larger white population at that school.

I got it now.

Not only is it not OK, thinking it proves you're a racist.

[Anonymous]

Not really. Building fantastic middle schools in other wards that would allow kids to stay in their own neighborhoods would probably increase segregation. Should we avoid that action? Be honest in your terms. Racial segregation isn't the issue here. The big issue is segregated access to quality education seeing everything in terms of race and racism is holding dc back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really. Building fantastic middle schools in other wards that would allow kids to stay in their own neighborhoods would probably increase segregation. Should we avoid that action? Be honest in your terms. Racial segregation isn't the issue here. The big issue is segregated access to quality education seeing everything in terms of race and racism is holding dc back.

Missing from this line of thought is that the desirable schools – elementary, middle or high schools – have a majority of students at grade level. Generally, unless a school has mostly proficient students, it will not be sought after. And no one, with a reasonable amount of money, can simply create a desirable school east of the park. That’s what makes DC so darn tough – there are not enough proficient students to go around and make every school attractive to parents. It’s a deficit model. East of the park I’d bet DCPS is about 25% proficient.

Parents instinctively want their child to be surrounded by smart and well behaved kids. Parents don’t want long-range planning for their child; they want to see a school working before their child enrolls. Parents don’t want their child to be an agent of social change, they want their children simply join an already existing strong cohort.

Parents of non-proficient also want to send their kids to schools that are majority proficient – it stretches their kid upward.

If parents instinctively want a school that is majority proficient, there’s no way to give them that without selective enrollment/admission.

The quickest way to improve DCPS is create as many majority proficient schools as possible. Doing so helps more struggling students than is currently the case. And creating more majority proficient and desirable schools will attract/retain proficient students – creating a positive feedback loop that strengthens the system.

Additionally, the higher a school’s proficiency and the larger its enrollment, the less expensive a school is to operate. And that savings should be used to fund the best remediation schools possible for whatever students cannot enroll in majority proficient schools.

As a parent, I feel like DCPS can monkey around all they want with buildings, with programs, with this and that, but for me, the disqualifier is a cohort that is mostly below grade level.

It ain’t pretty, but the quickest way to improve DCPS is create as many majority proficient schools as possible.

[Anonymous]

PP there is a lot of what you say I agree with, but you argue there is not enough proficient kids to go around. That most likely is true so how do you get enough proficient kids? The problem is still in the elementaries.