Feeding Bancroft and Shepherd across park undermines efforts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Which do you consider to be "similarly situated" to Bancroft and Shepherd?

Well, the Crestwood & 16th Street Heights neighborhoods are the obvious examples. And at the high school level, there are other neighborhoods like SW and Logan that lost access, but would seem to provide many of the same diversity attributes. Of course, I'm sure smart people can make arguments for and against each particular neighborhood. I'm not staking a position yet though, but instead just asking questions.

For these neighborhoods it's the feeder issue that Jeff explained above. None of these neighborhoods has an ES that feeds to Hardy or Deal, and SW and Logan do not have a MS that feeds to Wilson.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.

Bancroft is also a dual feeder--feeds into Deal and CHEC. Makes more sense to me for Bancroft to feed to CHEC than to Deal. (I am EOTP and sending my kid to my in-boundary non-Bancroft school, so no dog in this fight.)

That's a fair point. I didn't know until now that Bancroft was a dual feeder. I guess the immediate response is that CHEC's middle school doesn't have an English track. But, that's an entirely different bag of worms.

But wouldn't that be a reason for Bancroft to feed there, since they don't have an English track either?

Is that true? If so, I will actually learn two things today. I'll have to mark it on my calendar.

Yes, it is definitely true. Bancroft and Oyster are the two fully dual-language schools in DC.
And I know I keep beating a dead horse, but why not beat again--CHEC will have two NON-dual language schools feeding to its dual-language ONLY program under the new proposal. To the extent that the DME wants to make sense (and I realize we are talking DCPS here, so I take "sense" with a grain of salt), this is a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.

Bancroft is also a dual feeder--feeds into Deal and CHEC. Makes more sense to me for Bancroft to feed to CHEC than to Deal. (I am EOTP and sending my kid to my in-boundary non-Bancroft school, so no dog in this fight.)

That's a fair point. I didn't know until now that Bancroft was a dual feeder. I guess the immediate response is that CHEC's middle school doesn't have an English track. But, that's an entirely different bag of worms.

But wouldn't that be a reason for Bancroft to feed there, since they don't have an English track either?

Is that true? If so, I will actually learn two things today. I'll have to mark it on my calendar.

Yes, it is definitely true. Bancroft and Oyster are the two fully dual-language schools in DC.
And I know I keep beating a dead horse, but why not beat again--CHEC will have two NON-dual language schools feeding to its dual-language ONLY program under the new proposal. To the extent that the DME wants to make sense (and I realize we are talking DCPS here, so I take "sense" with a grain of salt), this is a bad idea.

Yes, it's odd when you put it that way, but suggestions have been made about why the city might want to limit the reach of CHEC and how it might change when leadership changes. Unless you are at one of those two feeder schools, what's the big problem with limiting the number of schools that feed CHEC in the meantime?

[Anonymous]

CHEC is nutty. The black sheep. A selective school that runs more like a charter school. With a principal who has more pull than Henderson or smith. Once she retires, we can figure out what to do with that school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.

Bancroft is also a dual feeder--feeds into Deal and CHEC. Makes more sense to me for Bancroft to feed to CHEC than to Deal. (I am EOTP and sending my kid to my in-boundary non-Bancroft school, so no dog in this fight.)

That's a fair point. I didn't know until now that Bancroft was a dual feeder. I guess the immediate response is that CHEC's middle school doesn't have an English track. But, that's an entirely different bag of worms.

But wouldn't that be a reason for Bancroft to feed there, since they don't have an English track either?

Is that true? If so, I will actually learn two things today. I'll have to mark it on my calendar.

Yes, it is definitely true. Bancroft and Oyster are the two fully dual-language schools in DC.
And I know I keep beating a dead horse, but why not beat again--CHEC will have two NON-dual language schools feeding to its dual-language ONLY program under the new proposal. To the extent that the DME wants to make sense (and I realize we are talking DCPS here, so I take "sense" with a grain of salt), this is a bad idea.

Yes, it's odd when you put it that way, but suggestions have been made about why the city might want to limit the reach of CHEC and how it might change when leadership changes. Unless you are at one of those two feeder schools, what's the big problem with limiting the number of schools that feed CHEC in the meantime?

I am at one of those feeder schools, and my kid doesn't speak a word of Spanish. If the city wants to limit CHEC, it should give it no feeders.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I gather that your own view is what someone articulated earlier: that the historical link to Wilson & Deal gives Shepherd Park & Bancroft some right to maintain that link, because DCPS wants to change only the bare minimum necessary to ease overcrowding at Wilson/Deal. Is that right?

My own view is that I'm about to burst a blood vein because people seem so willing to acknowledge the obvious:

1) Historical links don't mean squat. The boundaries have not been revisited since the 1960s. Unless your school closed, your current links are "historic". ...

7) I don't think there was ever a question -- nor should there be one now -- as to why Bancroft and Shepherd were able to remain as feeders. The appropriate question would have been "why shouldn't they?". There might be some compelling reasons -- particularly for Bancroft -- but those are for others to provide. Myself, I'm satisfied that moving Eaton was the least disruptive choice.

I'm sorry you're frustrated, Jeff. FWIW, I'm not some contrarian who's bashing the DME's proposal; I actually think it's pretty good on most points.

With regard to Shepherd and Bancroft though, one of the things that confuses me is the inter-play between your points 1 and 7. I agree with your #1 that historical links don't (and shouldn't) be dispositive in making decisions; DCPS needs to formulate a plan that's best for the system as a whole, not any particular neighborhood. But that seems to fly in the face of your #7 (and similar points others make) that Shepherd and Bancroft get preference because of their status as middle-school feeders. Am I misunderstanding you?

Also, on your question about "why shouldn't Bancroft & Shepherd feed to Deal/Wilson?," here are just a few half-baked thoughts:

1. Some people have made the point that current demographics for Ward 3 suggest that in-bounds crowding will continue to increase for Wilson/Deal. I worry that DME's proposal might not cut deeply enough. I'd prefer that we're not all back here in 5 years talking again about how to re-readjust the boundaries because Deal & Wilson are overcrowded again. I have not double-checked the numbers myself yet, but the idea we might NOT be solving the overcrowding problem concerns me.

2. I think part of DME's plan is to build up McFarland & Roosevelt, which is something that makes sense to me. I think part of accomplishing that goal is to push more engaged families into those schools, via boundary changes. To give those schools the best chance of success, I think DCPS should increase the number of families going to those schools. Communities like Bancroft & Shepherd -- just like Crestwood -- would help build critical mass at McFarland & Roosevelt. Both of those neighborhoods are closer to Mcfarland/Roosevelt than to Deal/Wilson, so the idea of "neighborhood schools" would seem to benefit from routing the feeder patterns that way.

3. I've still seen very few compelling reasons so far why any one of these neighborhoods truly deserves preference over another. Sure, there are some distinguishing characteristics, but I'm betting some smart person (or in the absence of a smart person, someone like me) could easily formulate counter-arguments about why other neighborhoods are more deserving.

I have grown very frustrated throughout this whole boundary process at how many people (from each and every different neighborhood) seem to feel their own particular neighborhood has some inviolable right to the most-desired schools, and that other neighborhoods should be forced out instead. Hardly anyone seems focused on what's best for DCPS as a whole. I suspect part of my agitation about this topic arose when I was seeing the same narrow parochial interests appearing here.

If it's just too annoying to everyone else to have to support their positions, I can drop it. FWIW though, I still don't see any logical reason Shepherd and Bancroft ought to be linked to Wilson/Deal. And since I did not start this thread, I suspect I'm not alone.

[Anonymous]

#2 of 17:19's comments especially resonates with me:


2. I think part of DME's plan is to build up McFarland & Roosevelt, which is something that makes sense to me. I think part of accomplishing that goal is to push more engaged families into those schools, via boundary changes. To give those schools the best chance of success, I think DCPS should increase the number of families going to those schools. Communities like Bancroft & Shepherd -- just like Crestwood -- would help build critical mass at McFarland & Roosevelt. Both of those neighborhoods are closer to Mcfarland/Roosevelt than to Deal/Wilson, so the idea of "neighborhood schools" would seem to benefit from routing the feeder patterns that way.

Could be that when that happens, schools and Bancroft and Shepard will be begging to get into the trendy, more convenient McFarland and Roosevelt and DCPS will graciously accede to their wishes, especially since Wilson will be bursting at the seams again.

[Anonymous]

NP, it does seem like you are beating a dead horse. The answer has been given several times already: The proposal is making INCREMENTAL changes. Sending two Deal feeders to McFarland in addition to sending Eaton to Hardy is not incremental, that's removing three of seven feeder schools AND sending two feeder schools to a different high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#2 of 17:19's comments especially resonates with me:


2. I think part of DME's plan is to build up McFarland & Roosevelt, which is something that makes sense to me. I think part of accomplishing that goal is to push more engaged families into those schools, via boundary changes. To give those schools the best chance of success, I think DCPS should increase the number of families going to those schools. Communities like Bancroft & Shepherd -- just like Crestwood -- would help build critical mass at McFarland & Roosevelt. Both of those neighborhoods are closer to Mcfarland/Roosevelt than to Deal/Wilson, so the idea of "neighborhood schools" would seem to benefit from routing the feeder patterns that way.

Could be that when that happens, schools and Bancroft and Shepard will be begging to get into the trendy, more convenient McFarland and Roosevelt and DCPS will graciously accede to their wishes, especially since Wilson will be bursting at the seams again.

By critical mass we all know you mean higher SES families. How is Bancroft at 70% low income going to help with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I gather that your own view is what someone articulated earlier: that the historical link to Wilson & Deal gives Shepherd Park & Bancroft some right to maintain that link, because DCPS wants to change only the bare minimum necessary to ease overcrowding at Wilson/Deal. Is that right?

My own view is that I'm about to burst a blood vein because people seem so willing to acknowledge the obvious:

1) Historical links don't mean squat. The boundaries have not been revisited since the 1960s. Unless your school closed, your current links are "historic". ...

7) I don't think there was ever a question -- nor should there be one now -- as to why Bancroft and Shepherd were able to remain as feeders. The appropriate question would have been "why shouldn't they?". There might be some compelling reasons -- particularly for Bancroft -- but those are for others to provide. Myself, I'm satisfied that moving Eaton was the least disruptive choice.

I'm sorry you're frustrated, Jeff. FWIW, I'm not some contrarian who's bashing the DME's proposal; I actually think it's pretty good on most points.

With regard to Shepherd and Bancroft though, one of the things that confuses me is the inter-play between your points 1 and 7. I agree with your #1 that historical links don't (and shouldn't) be dispositive in making decisions; DCPS needs to formulate a plan that's best for the system as a whole, not any particular neighborhood. But that seems to fly in the face of your #7 (and similar points others make) that Shepherd and Bancroft get preference because of their status as middle-school feeders. Am I misunderstanding you?

Also, on your question about "why shouldn't Bancroft & Shepherd feed to Deal/Wilson?," here are just a few half-baked thoughts:

1. Some people have made the point that current demographics for Ward 3 suggest that in-bounds crowding will continue to increase for Wilson/Deal. I worry that DME's proposal might not cut deeply enough. I'd prefer that we're not all back here in 5 years talking again about how to re-readjust the boundaries because Deal & Wilson are overcrowded again. I have not double-checked the numbers myself yet, but the idea we might NOT be solving the overcrowding problem concerns me.

2. I think part of DME's plan is to build up McFarland & Roosevelt, which is something that makes sense to me. I think part of accomplishing that goal is to push more engaged families into those schools, via boundary changes. To give those schools the best chance of success, I think DCPS should increase the number of families going to those schools. Communities like Bancroft & Shepherd -- just like Crestwood -- would help build critical mass at McFarland & Roosevelt. Both of those neighborhoods are closer to Mcfarland/Roosevelt than to Deal/Wilson, so the idea of "neighborhood schools" would seem to benefit from routing the feeder patterns that way.

3. I've still seen very few compelling reasons so far why any one of these neighborhoods truly deserves preference over another. Sure, there are some distinguishing characteristics, but I'm betting some smart person (or in the absence of a smart person, someone like me) could easily formulate counter-arguments about why other neighborhoods are more deserving.

I have grown very frustrated throughout this whole boundary process at how many people (from each and every different neighborhood) seem to feel their own particular neighborhood has some inviolable right to the most-desired schools, and that other neighborhoods should be forced out instead. Hardly anyone seems focused on what's best for DCPS as a whole. I suspect part of my agitation about this topic arose when I was seeing the same narrow parochial interests appearing here.

If it's just too annoying to everyone else to have to support their positions, I can drop it. FWIW though, I still don't see any logical reason Shepherd and Bancroft ought to be linked to Wilson/Deal. And since I did not start this thread, I suspect I'm not alone.

Based on this in bold, you are either a Ward 3 resident or else trolling. No-one else would argue for the DME to cut more feeders out of Deal than is strictly necessary. If you are at a Ward 3 Deal feeder that is not Eaton, then I think you are over-reacting to the crowding issue. The DME has projected, with access to all the data, that the proposed solution solves the crowding for the foreseeable future. If you are in a neighborhood removed from Deal, then I am at least empathetic. If none of the above, then you are unaffected by the topic of this thread and just trying to stir up trouble on the internet.

As for the underlined statement, this again, really? Gratuitously removing people from good schools thinking you can force them to help build struggling ones? In the case of Shepherd, it's majority OOB anyway so who are you forcing? In the case of Bancroft, the demographics are posted above. It's a Title I school. Possibly the only Title I school in the entire Wilson pyramid? Are those the families you are recruiting for MacFarland, even if it means them losing out on the great opportunities at Deal? Don't they face enough challenges in life without being obligated to build your middle school? Can't they just catch a break and attend Deal, which has been built up by others? For sure, these families are not posting on DCUM in large numbers. It's more likely the minority of higher-SES Mount Pleasant families who post here, and who attend all these community input meetings in far-flung corners of the city. Same with Shepherd. But the DME knows the true demographics which you choose to ignore.

Finally, the statement in italics: the DME committee cares about DCPS as a whole, and their proposal has been published.

Thanks for your faux concern.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I have grown very frustrated throughout this whole boundary process at how many people (from each and every different neighborhood) seem to feel their own particular neighborhood has some inviolable right to the most-desired schools, and that other neighborhoods should be forced out instead. Hardly anyone seems focused on what's best for DCPS as a whole. I suspect part of my agitation about this topic arose when I was seeing the same narrow parochial interests appearing here.

If it's just too annoying to everyone else to have to support their positions, I can drop it. FWIW though, I still don't see any logical reason Shepherd and Bancroft ought to be linked to Wilson/Deal. And since I did not start this thread, I suspect I'm not alone.

Well, if I've done nothing else, I hope I have shown that I am not focusing parochial interests (that is, in addition to showing that I don't now anything about Bancroft). The parochial argument for me would be that historical patterns are the most important thing ever and nothing is less important than feeder relationships. I am also not supporting the Ponies and Unicorns proposal in which everyone gets exactly what they want. The reality is that the Advisory Committee -- with substantial public support -- chose to focus its recommendations on neighborhood schools and predictable feeder patterns. That being the case, I don't understand why you would not agree that existing feeder patterns would be the logical starting point.

You propose social engineering improvements in MacFarland and Roosevelt by "pushing" engaged families into those schools. In this case, I do have a parochial interest. But, this is more of an observation: engaged families will un-engage themselves from DCPS pretty damn quickly if they feel they are being forced into an underperforming school.

I don't view neighborhoods as more or less deserving than one another. Some lucked out with the current plan and some didn't. Fair enough if you don't like the plan. But, then it is fair to question more than just Shepherd and Bancroft. Maybe Mann and Key want to make the case for feeding to Deal? Maybe Lafayette should feed to the new "north" Ward 4 MS? As I recall, it's in the north of Ward 4. Your focus on Bancroft and Shepherd suggest a bit of an agenda that you are reluctant to acknowledge.

As for a failure to focus on what is best for DCPS as a whole, the two biggest culprits are DCPS and the DME. The latest recommendations propose not one, but four new middle schools. Anyone who believes that DCPS is capable of opening four high-performing middle schools in a reasonable timeframe, please stop by my house to purchase a bridge that I have to sell you. The bridge doesn't exist right now, mind you, but it will be ready by 2015. This is a path leading people out of DCPS. Do you think if Bancroft and Shepherd were told they are being reassigned from Deal to a middle school that might, if we ever get funding, and DCPS agrees to it, exist some day they would stick around to see how it turns out? Not anymore than anyone in my neighborhood will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 of 17:19's comments especially resonates with me:


2. I think part of DME's plan is to build up McFarland & Roosevelt, which is something that makes sense to me. I think part of accomplishing that goal is to push more engaged families into those schools, via boundary changes. To give those schools the best chance of success, I think DCPS should increase the number of families going to those schools. Communities like Bancroft & Shepherd -- just like Crestwood -- would help build critical mass at McFarland & Roosevelt. Both of those neighborhoods are closer to Mcfarland/Roosevelt than to Deal/Wilson, so the idea of "neighborhood schools" would seem to benefit from routing the feeder patterns that way.

Could be that when that happens, schools and Bancroft and Shepard will be begging to get into the trendy, more convenient McFarland and Roosevelt and DCPS will graciously accede to their wishes, especially since Wilson will be bursting at the seams again.

By critical mass we all know you mean higher SES families. How is Bancroft at 70% low income going to help with that?

I did not write the "critical mass" comment so was not thinking about higher SES families when I suggested that Bancroft and Shepard would eventually want to Roosevelt. If Roosevelt brings in a higher SES group, it will also want the lower SES bancroft crowd for diversity, no?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have grown very frustrated throughout this whole boundary process at how many people (from each and every different neighborhood) seem to feel their own particular neighborhood has some inviolable right to the most-desired schools, and that other neighborhoods should be forced out instead. Hardly anyone seems focused on what's best for DCPS as a whole. I suspect part of my agitation about this topic arose when I was seeing the same narrow parochial interests appearing here.

If it's just too annoying to everyone else to have to support their positions, I can drop it. FWIW though, I still don't see any logical reason Shepherd and Bancroft ought to be linked to Wilson/Deal. And since I did not start this thread, I suspect I'm not alone.

Well, if I've done nothing else, I hope I have shown that I am not focusing parochial interests (that is, in addition to showing that I don't now anything about Bancroft). The parochial argument for me would be that historical patterns are the most important thing ever and nothing is less important than feeder relationships. I am also not supporting the Ponies and Unicorns proposal in which everyone gets exactly what they want. The reality is that the Advisory Committee -- with substantial public support -- chose to focus its recommendations on neighborhood schools and predictable feeder patterns. That being the case, I don't understand why you would not agree that existing feeder patterns would be the logical starting point.

You propose social engineering improvements in MacFarland and Roosevelt by "pushing" engaged families into those schools. In this case, I do have a parochial interest. But, this is more of an observation: engaged families will un-engage themselves from DCPS pretty damn quickly if they feel they are being forced into an underperforming school.

I don't view neighborhoods as more or less deserving than one another. Some lucked out with the current plan and some didn't. Fair enough if you don't like the plan. But, then it is fair to question more than just Shepherd and Bancroft. Maybe Mann and Key want to make the case for feeding to Deal? Maybe Lafayette should feed to the new "north" Ward 4 MS? As I recall, it's in the north of Ward 4. Your focus on Bancroft and Shepherd suggest a bit of an agenda that you are reluctant to acknowledge.

As for a failure to focus on what is best for DCPS as a whole, the two biggest culprits are DCPS and the DME. The latest recommendations propose not one, but four new middle schools. Anyone who believes that DCPS is capable of opening four high-performing middle schools in a reasonable timeframe, please stop by my house to purchase a bridge that I have to sell you. The bridge doesn't exist right now, mind you, but it will be ready by 2015. This is a path leading people out of DCPS. Do you think if Bancroft and Shepherd were told they are being reassigned from Deal to a middle school that might, if we ever get funding, and DCPS agrees to it, exist some day they would stick around to see how it turns out? Not anymore than anyone in my neighborhood will.

So why would DME do that? Incompetence? Some nefarious scheme that will soon come to light?

Let's see -- some hotshot charter high school opens in Crestwood and everyone else is so happy in their new IB DCPS near a metro stop that mainly Crestwood families play the lottery and get in! It functions as a de-facto neighborhood school until more gentrification makes Roosevelt a truly desirable choice.

[Anonymous]

Why is PP so adament on having someone convince her why Shepherd and Bancroft should continue to feed as opposed to another feeder? Is she really suggesting that they make a drastic change of removing 2 feeders and adding a whole new neighborhood all together? It doesn't sound like she's an Eaton parent so I'm really confused. PP, what school are you zoned for? For the life of me, I can't figure out your angle.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
My own view is that I'm about to burst a blood vein because people seem so willing to acknowledge the obvious:

1) Historical links don't mean squat. The boundaries have not been revisited since the 1960s. Unless your school closed, your current links are "historic".

I just want to point it out because it hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread: Shepherd is a newcomer at Deal. Shepherd used to feed Paul, Paul closed in 2000. Shepherd wasn't part of the desegregation lawsuits of the 60's and 70's. Personally I don't think the historical links mean squat but let's keep our facts straight.