Cardozo Feeder Pattern Middle School

[Anonymous]

Co-location with Banneker brings us back to the question of why that is ok, but not collocation with Cardozo. Current enrollment numbers support staying at Cardozo for the time being. There are seats at Cardozo and future projections do not take into account the reality of people not choosing to attend.

Yes- improvements to Cardozo need to be made- including a separate budget and principal, but all the collocation benefits exist. Refusing this option but being ok with the same set up at Banneker is really questionable. It gets to the idea of people only being ok with schools that are “curated” to meet their needs. (Ie, the Banneker kids are fine because they are high performing).

I just think it is a really messy argument to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Co-location with Banneker brings us back to the question of why that is ok, but not collocation with Cardozo. Current enrollment numbers support staying at Cardozo for the time being. There are seats at Cardozo and future projections do not take into account the reality of people not choosing to attend.

Yes- improvements to Cardozo need to be made- including a separate budget and principal, but all the collocation benefits exist. Refusing this option but being ok with the same set up at Banneker is really questionable. It gets to the idea of people only being ok with schools that are “curated” to meet their needs. (Ie, the Banneker kids are fine because they are high performing).

I just think it is a really messy argument to make.

I don't think it's messy, I think it's important to acknowledge reality. The colocation benefit of Banneker is that being with a well managed and well performing school helps a middle school. Being attached to a struggling high school means that the middle school will always come second to the needs of the high school and will never get enough attention because the high school is such a mess.

[Anonymous]

Current enrollment numbers are in part the result of DCPS treating Cardozo Middle like crap. That isn't a reason to continue treating it badly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Co-location with Banneker brings us back to the question of why that is ok, but not collocation with Cardozo. Current enrollment numbers support staying at Cardozo for the time being. There are seats at Cardozo and future projections do not take into account the reality of people not choosing to attend.

Yes- improvements to Cardozo need to be made- including a separate budget and principal, but all the collocation benefits exist. Refusing this option but being ok with the same set up at Banneker is really questionable. It gets to the idea of people only being ok with schools that are “curated” to meet their needs. (Ie, the Banneker kids are fine because they are high performing).

I just think it is a really messy argument to make.

I don't think it's messy, I think it's important to acknowledge reality. The colocation benefit of Banneker is that being with a well managed and well performing school helps a middle school. Being attached to a struggling high school means that the middle school will always come second to the needs of the high school and will never get enough attention because the high school is such a mess.

I don’t think DCPS should do anything that might weaken Banneker. It is a strong well-managed high school getting great results. It will also be significantly increasing in size. Asking them to also take on a new middle school is too much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Co-location with Banneker brings us back to the question of why that is ok, but not collocation with Cardozo. Current enrollment numbers support staying at Cardozo for the time being. There are seats at Cardozo and future projections do not take into account the reality of people not choosing to attend.

Yes- improvements to Cardozo need to be made- including a separate budget and principal, but all the collocation benefits exist. Refusing this option but being ok with the same set up at Banneker is really questionable. It gets to the idea of people only being ok with schools that are “curated” to meet their needs. (Ie, the Banneker kids are fine because they are high performing).

I just think it is a really messy argument to make.

I don't think it's messy, I think it's important to acknowledge reality. The colocation benefit of Banneker is that being with a well managed and well performing school helps a middle school. Being attached to a struggling high school means that the middle school will always come second to the needs of the high school and will never get enough attention because the high school is such a mess.

I don’t think DCPS should do anything that might weaken Banneker. It is a strong well-managed high school getting great results. It will also be significantly increasing in size. Asking them to also take on a new middle school is too much

They wouldn't be taking it on. Just existing next door to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 20:03 - SWW and SWW@FS are not co-located.

Wish they were. The school is good as it is. Collocation would be better.

No. SWW High School will not be benefitted in any way by adding 6th-8th graders to its long-time, standalone site on the GW campus.

The suggestion wasn’t to move SWW. Clearly not feasible or desirable. But to say it would be an advantage if it were not split over two campuses almost a mile from each other. The opportunity to do something along these lines exists in Shaw with the large Shaw campus and the neighboring Seaton site that is due for modernization.

But the high school _isn’t_ “split” between two campuses. It’s where it has always been. 18 year olds don’t walk a mile to use the library next to 6 year olds on Tuesdays at sww @ francis stevens.

What would be better is if the city had never combined any administration duties /positions for these two schools in the first place a few years ago. That was a strange, unpopular cost-saving conceit that should be undone.

[Anonymous]

Not knowing much about SWW myself, what about McKinley? The middle school is in a wing of the same building and the school has flexibility in cross-scheduling students and faculty so the middle school can offer advanced classes cost-effectively. I know the middle school test scores are not great right now, but I think the underlying idea of colocating is solid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not knowing much about SWW myself, what about McKinley? The middle school is in a wing of the same building and the school has flexibility in cross-scheduling students and faculty so the middle school can offer advanced classes cost-effectively. I know the middle school test scores are not great right now, but I think the underlying idea of colocating is solid.

Maybe but conversely if the principal were not split between two schools she would have more time to spend on either — McKinley Texh desperately needs to do more to promote its programs and find outside support for things like better laptops and equipment.

And the MS could use more attention to bringing students up to grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not knowing much about SWW myself, what about McKinley? The middle school is in a wing of the same building and the school has flexibility in cross-scheduling students and faculty so the middle school can offer advanced classes cost-effectively. I know the middle school test scores are not great right now, but I think the underlying idea of colocating is solid.

Maybe but conversely if the principal were not split between two schools she would have more time to spend on either — McKinley Texh desperately needs to do more to promote its programs and find outside support for things like better laptops and equipment.

And the MS could use more attention to bringing students up to grade level.

I think the middle school having its own principal would be perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not knowing much about SWW myself, what about McKinley? The middle school is in a wing of the same building and the school has flexibility in cross-scheduling students and faculty so the middle school can offer advanced classes cost-effectively. I know the middle school test scores are not great right now, but I think the underlying idea of colocating is solid.

Maybe but conversely if the principal were not split between two schools she would have more time to spend on either — McKinley Texh desperately needs to do more to promote its programs and find outside support for things like better laptops and equipment.

And the MS could use more attention to bringing students up to grade level.

I think the middle school having its own principal would be perfect.

If a school is called a MS, it should have its own principal (McKinley).

And since the EC's are being phased out, once the break is complete, they should get their own too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey 20:03 - SWW and SWW@FS are not co-located.

The middle and elementary are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Half the dcps middle schools in the city are under enrolled, low preformimg and in some cases unsafe. Why don't they work to improve the school they have and increase the feeder patterns for those school instead of building more multi million dollar building that will sit half empty??

And why do t the get rid of magnet schools and applications schools so as to uplift the neighborhood Dcps high schools. ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Co-location with Banneker brings us back to the question of why that is ok, but not collocation with Cardozo. Current enrollment numbers support staying at Cardozo for the time being. There are seats at Cardozo and future projections do not take into account the reality of people not choosing to attend.

Yes- improvements to Cardozo need to be made- including a separate budget and principal, but all the collocation benefits exist. Refusing this option but being ok with the same set up at Banneker is really questionable. It gets to the idea of people only being ok with schools that are “curated” to meet their needs. (Ie, the Banneker kids are fine because they are high performing).

I just think it is a really messy argument to make.

I don't think it's messy, I think it's important to acknowledge reality. The colocation benefit of Banneker is that being with a well managed and well performing school helps a middle school. Being attached to a struggling high school means that the middle school will always come second to the needs of the high school and will never get enough attention because the high school is such a mess.

I don’t think DCPS should do anything that might weaken Banneker. It is a strong well-managed high school getting great results. It will also be significantly increasing in size. Asking them to also take on a new middle school is too much

They wouldn't be taking it on. Just existing next door to it.

Exactly. And who knows if they will ever increase enrollment without lowering the entry requirements...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Co-location with Banneker brings us back to the question of why that is ok, but not collocation with Cardozo. Current enrollment numbers support staying at Cardozo for the time being. There are seats at Cardozo and future projections do not take into account the reality of people not choosing to attend.

Yes- improvements to Cardozo need to be made- including a separate budget and principal, but all the collocation benefits exist. Refusing this option but being ok with the same set up at Banneker is really questionable. It gets to the idea of people only being ok with schools that are “curated” to meet their needs. (Ie, the Banneker kids are fine because they are high performing).

I just think it is a really messy argument to make.

+1

[Anonymous]

Reminder: The next meeting on this is tonight, Thursday April 25, from 6-8pm at Garrison Elementary School (1200 S St. NW).