"The current system is unsustainable." Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To get back to the original question, yes then here situation is unsustainable in just about all ways. As PP described, Ward 3 schools used to have a lot of OOB openings and one could get in with persistence. Now not so much. The lack of desirable schools is still all too few. And too many kids are simply failing. Overcrowding in some school, empty buildings elsewhere.

All of that is unsustainable.

This describes inner city America for the past several decades, and most of the cities in question have seen big improvements over time (Detroit the rare exception), so I guess it depends on your definition of sustainable. Seems very sustainable to me, given how long it has sustained itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can cash in on their gentrification bet when they do. And no, price appreciation in gentrifying neighborhoods has almost nothing to do with schools. Just look at Bloomingdale. It has a lot to do with rapid changes in racial and income demographics and the opening of attractive restaurant and retail.

mostly I agree, but I would point out that lots of the people buying in Bloomingdale et al are doing so because prices in WOTP and the better parts of the Hill are so high. If home prices west of the park went down by 20% that would cut into the momentum for gentrification EOTP.

OTOH I'm not sure declines of 20% or more WOTP are possible even if the schools get very bad. There are enough gays/emptynesters/childless folks who are either living in the burbs, or or living in condos, who would buy SFHs if the prices came down, I think.

That may be right, I don't know, but I wonder how lowering RE prices help the city budget. Seems to me that the city wants to keep the tax money rolling in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To get back to the original question, yes then here situation is unsustainable in just about all ways. As PP described, Ward 3 schools used to have a lot of OOB openings and one could get in with persistence. Now not so much. The lack of desirable schools is still all too few. And too many kids are simply failing. Overcrowding in some school, empty buildings elsewhere.

All of that is unsustainable.

This describes inner city America for the past several decades, and most of the cities in question have seen big improvements over time (Detroit the rare exception), so I guess it depends on your definition of sustainable. Seems very sustainable to me, given how long it has sustained itself.

It was sustainable as long as a lot of middle class families weren't looking for decent schools in the city.

DC was sustaining itself on a couple of pricey neighborhoods and a lot depressed RE values because of white flight. Gentrification is a major game changer, just like white flight was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current system isn't good, but there's no evidence it isn't sustainable. The current boundary review has shown that chronic crowding and underutilization is more politically palatable than change.

"politically palatable" does not equal "sustainable"

[Anonymous]

What 9:47 said. Things haven't been like this for decades, at all. Five or ten years ago, with persistence one could get into schools WOTP OOB. Ward 3 schools were not bursting at the seems. What we had was not good, but sustainable. What we have now is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What 9:47 said. Things haven't been like this for decades, at all. Five or ten years ago, with persistence one could get into schools WOTP OOB. Ward 3 schools were not bursting at the seems. What we had was not good, but sustainable. What we have now is not.

But schools beyond WOTP are also improving and a few are bursting at the seams that previously were so diminished as to be on the chopping block. I'm thinking of Brent, Maury and Ross, but I'm sure there may be others. Things are far better at those schools than they used to be. things are on the right track at many schools-- not enough, but at many.

[Anonymous]

Yes it goes east of the park in a few cases (overcrowding). Another indication of the unsustainable nature of the current situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it goes east of the park in a few cases (overcrowding). Another indication of the unsustainable nature of the current situation.

I disagree that it indicates the system is not sustainable. If anything it indicates that the system is adaptable. that schools that were unpopular can become popular, given the right conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can cash in on their gentrification bet when they do. And no, price appreciation in gentrifying neighborhoods has almost nothing to do with schools. Just look at Bloomingdale. It has a lot to do with rapid changes in racial and income demographics and the opening of attractive restaurant and retail.

mostly I agree, but I would point out that lots of the people buying in Bloomingdale et al are doing so because prices in WOTP and the better parts of the Hill are so high. If home prices west of the park went down by 20% that would cut into the momentum for gentrification EOTP.

OTOH I'm not sure declines of 20% or more WOTP are possible even if the schools get very bad. There are enough gays/emptynesters/childless folks who are either living in the burbs, or or living in condos, who would buy SFHs if the prices came down, I think.

That may be right, I don't know, but I wonder how lowering RE prices help the city budget. Seems to me that the city wants to keep the tax money rolling in

I don't think what I said above disagrees with that. I was taking issue with the folks who said that schools dont matter to DCs budget because Bloomingdale (for example) is gentrifying without them. I think schools matter somwwhat - there is momentum for gentrification anyway, but better schools will make that stronger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not a matter of being less worthy, it is a matter of knowing what the facts on the ground are. I think it is amazing/great/fabulous/understandable/whatever that the city is being gentrified and families are staying and revitalizing the city in many ways. The facts are that most schools outside wards 2, 3 and 4 with a few exceptions have long been abysmal failures, similar to many urban areas outside DC. This is not solely the result of failed dcps policies and this is information that is widely available. Of course the city needs to improve the schools for all, but that is a long term task at this point. The reason that some dcps schools have thrived is that they have had a different cohort of families over the long term, which results in a long history of involved parents and prepared students.

The only point I was supporting was the idea that parents knew what they were getting into or should have. I have extreme sympathy for the dilemma but not for the position that parents did not decide to place themselves in that deli a to solve. Again, I am not speaking here to parents that have been proposed to be zoned out of successful schools or famies that do not have real choices in where they live. And by having no choices I don't mean parents that bought a condo in a gentrifying neighborhood and are underwater or educated parents that work for non profits and refuse to move to nova (where they could afford to live in a decent school district) because of the commute.

When the kids who are currently at Deal were born, Deal was still kind of iffy. Their families didn't plan, they just got lucky. The families who planned are in Montgomery County or private.

This is untrue. It gets repeated all the time so newcomers with 4 yr olds start to accept it as gospel. But in fact, Deal has been the plan for inbounds Lafayette, Janney and Murch families for at least 35 years. In that order. Fewer of them in 1985 than today, yes. But the IB kids of NPR producers and public interest lawyers in CCDC have always gone to Deal.