Athletic groups at Deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal families could support redistricting so that fewer kids were IB for the school. If Lafayette and Coolidge went to Wells and Coolidge and Bancroft (and Oyster) went to MacFarland and Roosevelt, there would be more opportunity to play sports, along with many other advantages.

It makes zero sense to redistrict Lafayette to anywhere else. It is a 10 minute walk to Deal. Why make kids travel across the park? Shepard and Bancroft should be going to Wells, if anything.

Shepherd is small. They only send 25-30 kids there a year. How does removing the main source of diversity help the over crowding. Makes no sense

It isn't the main source of diversity.

If Shepherd sends 25-30 diverse students to Deal (though it is 17% white, so maybe not all of those students are diverse?), then:

Lafayette alone has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~40).
Murch alone has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~37).
Even Janney, the school with the highest percentage of white students, has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~29).

You may not appreciate just how large these elementary schools are. At Lafayette, for example, 31% diversity = 275 students, which isn't far off from the total enrollment of Shepherd. At Murch, 43% diversity = 259 students.

Only Hearst (49% diverse) sends slightly fewer diverse students than Shepherd, and that's because it too is a smaller school.

Every school feeds diversity into Deal. I don't have an opinion about changing boundaries, but I think it is important to recognize that diverse students come from all schools. So it appears that removing Shepherd only (which I do not advocate), would decrease Deal's diversity by less than 1% per year until it stabilized in year 3. So, you will need to find a stronger argument to fight change should anything be proposed. Personally, I would focus on the fact that Shepherd students are coming from a less diverse school (83% minority, which meets most definitions of a segregated student population), and so have the most to gain by matriculating to a more diverse middle school, Deal, which does not have a segregated population (defined as >80% minority). Then again, due to its size, sending Lafayette to a new middle school with Shepherd also accomplishes this goal and creates another non-segregated middle school population in the city, in addition to Deal, Hardy, and Oyster-Adams.

Also, according to Google maps, it is a 29 minute walk from the Lafayette building to the Deal building, and for the closest Lafayette families (former Murch boundary) is it s 15 minute walk, and for the farthest Lafayette homes, it is a one hour walk. Not a 10 minute walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal families could support redistricting so that fewer kids were IB for the school. If Lafayette and Coolidge went to Wells and Coolidge and Bancroft (and Oyster) went to MacFarland and Roosevelt, there would be more opportunity to play sports, along with many other advantages.

It makes zero sense to redistrict Lafayette to anywhere else. It is a 10 minute walk to Deal. Why make kids travel across the park? Shepard and Bancroft should be going to Wells, if anything.

Shepherd is small. They only send 25-30 kids there a year. How does removing the main source of diversity help the over crowding. Makes no sense

It isn't the main source of diversity.

If Shepherd sends 25-30 diverse students to Deal (though it is 17% white, so maybe not all of those students are diverse?), then:

Lafayette alone has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~40).
Murch alone has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~37).
Even Janney, the school with the highest percentage of white students, has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~29).

You may not appreciate just how large these elementary schools are. At Lafayette, for example, 31% diversity = 275 students, which isn't far off from the total enrollment of Shepherd. At Murch, 43% diversity = 259 students.

Only Hearst (49% diverse) sends slightly fewer diverse students than Shepherd, and that's because it too is a smaller school.

Every school feeds diversity into Deal. I don't have an opinion about changing boundaries, but I think it is important to recognize that diverse students come from all schools. So it appears that removing Shepherd only (which I do not advocate), would decrease Deal's diversity by less than 1% per year until it stabilized in year 3. So, you will need to find a stronger argument to fight change should anything be proposed. Personally, I would focus on the fact that Shepherd students are coming from a less diverse school (83% minority, which meets most definitions of a segregated student population), and so have the most to gain by matriculating to a more diverse middle school, Deal, which does not have a segregated population (defined as >80% minority). Then again, due to its size, sending Lafayette to a new middle school with Shepherd also accomplishes this goal and creates another non-segregated middle school population in the city, in addition to Deal, Hardy, and Oyster-Adams.

Also, according to Google maps, it is a 29 minute walk from the Lafayette building to the Deal building, and for the closest Lafayette families (former Murch boundary) is it s 15 minute walk, and for the farthest Lafayette homes, it is a one hour walk. Not a 10 minute walk.

Now do it with Black students. Yes, Hispanic and Asian add to diversity, but black population is still the plurality of this city and schools like Janney and Lafayette send approximately 5-7 black students to Deal every year. That number is getting smaller every year. I believe this year’s 5th grade at Lafayette has 3-4 black students. Shepherd’s 5th grade is approximately 40 black students (for a school 1/3 the size).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal families could support redistricting so that fewer kids were IB for the school. If Lafayette and Coolidge went to Wells and Coolidge and Bancroft (and Oyster) went to MacFarland and Roosevelt, there would be more opportunity to play sports, along with many other advantages.

It makes zero sense to redistrict Lafayette to anywhere else. It is a 10 minute walk to Deal. Why make kids travel across the park? Shepard and Bancroft should be going to Wells, if anything.

Shepherd is small. They only send 25-30 kids there a year. How does removing the main source of diversity help the over crowding. Makes no sense

It isn't the main source of diversity.

If Shepherd sends 25-30 diverse students to Deal (though it is 17% white, so maybe not all of those students are diverse?), then:

Lafayette alone has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~40).
Murch alone has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~37).
Even Janney, the school with the highest percentage of white students, has more diverse students matriculate to Deal than Shepherd (~29).

You may not appreciate just how large these elementary schools are. At Lafayette, for example, 31% diversity = 275 students, which isn't far off from the total enrollment of Shepherd. At Murch, 43% diversity = 259 students.

Only Hearst (49% diverse) sends slightly fewer diverse students than Shepherd, and that's because it too is a smaller school.

Every school feeds diversity into Deal. I don't have an opinion about changing boundaries, but I think it is important to recognize that diverse students come from all schools. So it appears that removing Shepherd only (which I do not advocate), would decrease Deal's diversity by less than 1% per year until it stabilized in year 3. So, you will need to find a stronger argument to fight change should anything be proposed. Personally, I would focus on the fact that Shepherd students are coming from a less diverse school (83% minority, which meets most definitions of a segregated student population), and so have the most to gain by matriculating to a more diverse middle school, Deal, which does not have a segregated population (defined as >80% minority). Then again, due to its size, sending Lafayette to a new middle school with Shepherd also accomplishes this goal and creates another non-segregated middle school population in the city, in addition to Deal, Hardy, and Oyster-Adams.

Also, according to Google maps, it is a 29 minute walk from the Lafayette building to the Deal building, and for the closest Lafayette families (former Murch boundary) is it s 15 minute walk, and for the farthest Lafayette homes, it is a one hour walk. Not a 10 minute walk.

Now do it with Black students. Yes, Hispanic and Asian add to diversity, but black population is still the plurality of this city and schools like Janney and Lafayette send approximately 5-7 black students to Deal every year. That number is getting smaller every year. I believe this year’s 5th grade at Lafayette has 3-4 black students. Shepherd’s 5th grade is approximately 40 black students (for a school 1/3 the size).

+1000

[Anonymous]

Back to the original topic of the post. My son didn’t make the basketball team. I heard the coach didn’t choose the best players this year from other parents. Disappointed as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original topic of the post. My son didn’t make the basketball team. I heard the coach didn’t choose the best players this year from other parents. Disappointed as usual.

Honestly, this is a very common complaint from parents that didn’t make any team. Most parents don’t have an honest gauge on how truly talented their kid vs another kid. With b-ball, there are many other factors at play too. A kid seemingly not as talented as their good-shooting son may be taller and better on defense and they already have 2 other point guards that can shoot better and ball handle better than kid A. My husband is a coach and I was softball coach for many years. I never believe it when someone says they didn’t pick the most talented kids. It’s 98% parent entitlement speaking and 2% ignorance of the sport.

[Anonymous]

Come on previous poster. I have 3 very athletic kids in DC who have been on years and years of school and travel teams in 3 sports and on almost every roster there have been kids chosen for political and/or social reasons over kids who are objectively more talented. I mean, welcome to sports in DC. It's a rare roster that doesn't ha r some element of this on it and it gets worse the higher you go in youth sports. You're naive if you don't think so or don't see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original topic of the post. My son didn’t make the basketball team. I heard the coach didn’t choose the best players this year from other parents. Disappointed as usual.

Honestly, this is a very common complaint from parents that didn’t make any team. Most parents don’t have an honest gauge on how truly talented their kid vs another kid. With b-ball, there are many other factors at play too. A kid seemingly not as talented as their good-shooting son may be taller and better on defense and they already have 2 other point guards that can shoot better and ball handle better than kid A. My husband is a coach and I was softball coach for many years. I never believe it when someone says they didn’t pick the most talented kids. It’s 98% parent entitlement speaking and 2% ignorance of the sport.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on previous poster. I have 3 very athletic kids in DC who have been on years and years of school and travel teams in 3 sports and on almost every roster there have been kids chosen for political and/or social reasons over kids who are objectively more talented. I mean, welcome to sports in DC. It's a rare roster that doesn't ha r some element of this on it and it gets worse the higher you go in youth sports. You're naive if you don't think so or don't see it.

Yahtzee. Quite typical in AAU world where the coaches son is usually on the team. Basketball is a different type of beast from other sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on previous poster. I have 3 very athletic kids in DC who have been on years and years of school and travel teams in 3 sports and on almost every roster there have been kids chosen for political and/or social reasons over kids who are objectively more talented. I mean, welcome to sports in DC. It's a rare roster that doesn't ha r some element of this on it and it gets worse the higher you go in youth sports. You're naive if you don't think so or don't see it.

Yahtzee. Quite typical in AAU world where the coaches son is usually on the team. Basketball is a different type of beast from other sports.

I’ve literally never heard of an AAU team that had a coach’s kid on it. All the AAU teams my son played on were coached by high school coaches whose main job was basketball coach. Most were single or had very young kids. Coaches were far too concerned about keeping sponsors happy to mess with family nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on previous poster. I have 3 very athletic kids in DC who have been on years and years of school and travel teams in 3 sports and on almost every roster there have been kids chosen for political and/or social reasons over kids who are objectively more talented. I mean, welcome to sports in DC. It's a rare roster that doesn't ha r some element of this on it and it gets worse the higher you go in youth sports. You're naive if you don't think so or don't see it.

Yahtzee. Quite typical in AAU world where the coaches son is usually on the team. Basketball is a different type of beast from other sports.

I’ve literally never heard of an AAU team that had a coach’s kid on it. All the AAU teams my son played on were coached by high school coaches whose main job was basketball coach. Most were single or had very young kids. Coaches were far too concerned about keeping sponsors happy to mess with family nonsense.

Clearly you haven’t played on a D1 team. Please look at Team Durant, Takeover, and evening PYBL. Not to say every team has a coach son combo but it’s pretty common. Just ask

[Anonymous]

+1. A couple of years ago the Deal 6th grade coach had his son on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on previous poster. I have 3 very athletic kids in DC who have been on years and years of school and travel teams in 3 sports and on almost every roster there have been kids chosen for political and/or social reasons over kids who are objectively more talented. I mean, welcome to sports in DC. It's a rare roster that doesn't ha r some element of this on it and it gets worse the higher you go in youth sports. You're naive if you don't think so or don't see it.

I also fit your description. Travis politics is bit quite the same as public middle school. They selected the best kids, period. If PP’s kid didn’t make it, he wasn’t one of the best 19 kids. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on previous poster. I have 3 very athletic kids in DC who have been on years and years of school and travel teams in 3 sports and on almost every roster there have been kids chosen for political and/or social reasons over kids who are objectively more talented. I mean, welcome to sports in DC. It's a rare roster that doesn't ha r some element of this on it and it gets worse the higher you go in youth sports. You're naive if you don't think so or don't see it.

I also fit your description. Travis politics is bit quite the same as public middle school. They selected the best kids, period. If PP’s kid didn’t make it, he wasn’t one of the best 19 kids. Sorry.

Really? Half of those kids ride the bench and never even see the court. Another clueless one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on previous poster. I have 3 very athletic kids in DC who have been on years and years of school and travel teams in 3 sports and on almost every roster there have been kids chosen for political and/or social reasons over kids who are objectively more talented. I mean, welcome to sports in DC. It's a rare roster that doesn't ha r some element of this on it and it gets worse the higher you go in youth sports. You're naive if you don't think so or don't see it.

I also fit your description. Travis politics is bit quite the same as public middle school. They selected the best kids, period. If PP’s kid didn’t make it, he wasn’t one of the best 19 kids. Sorry.

Really? Half of those kids ride the bench and never even see the court. Another clueless one.

Sorry that you are upset your son didn't make the team but I hope that you are modeling more mature behavior for him that what you are expressing here. Your 6th grade son's athletic skill has been solely defined by how early he started, how much money you have paid and how much you committed to him learning basketball. Maybe he doesn't have any demonstrable talent. Maybe the coach doesn't see him developing beyond what he showed during tryouts. Maybe he isn't in very good shape and was winded a lot during the tryouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on previous poster. I have 3 very athletic kids in DC who have been on years and years of school and travel teams in 3 sports and on almost every roster there have been kids chosen for political and/or social reasons over kids who are objectively more talented. I mean, welcome to sports in DC. It's a rare roster that doesn't ha r some element of this on it and it gets worse the higher you go in youth sports. You're naive if you don't think so or don't see it.

I also fit your description. Travis politics is bit quite the same as public middle school. They selected the best kids, period. If PP’s kid didn’t make it, he wasn’t one of the best 19 kids. Sorry.

Really? Half of those kids ride the bench and never even see the court. Another clueless one.

PP you responded to. Who’s clueless? Of course half will ride the bench. The ones that didn’t make the team are still not as good as the bench riders or they would have been selected.