Feeding Bancroft and Shepherd across park undermines efforts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I agree Shepard and Bancroft should feed elsewhere. They do look to have gained a gerrymander via some political deal.

The only reason I can see that makes any sense is that DME looked at the available Deal/Wilson seats, decided she could fit in a few more kids, and that Shep/Bancroft just had the political pull (or got lucky) to be the ones selected.

But if there really are more available seats at Deal/Wilson, I think it makes more sense to put them into the openly available lottery rather than reserve them for Shep/Bancroft.

Does DME describe any justification anywhere for giving this special favor to Shep/Bancroft?

^ Useless post by an ignorant fool. Shepherd and Bancroft have been Deal feeders for decades. Maybe try shutting up when you don't know what you're talking about?

I'm sorry you're unable to engage in civil and constructive discussion. How about the fact that Shepard Park was not zoned for Wilson previously? The only route to Wilson was thru some ridiculous feeder argument, which as I hear tell was created during the Rhee administration. So don't give me yap about decades of history. And as for Bancroft, it's way outside the Deal-Wilson neighborhood, and far closer to other schools.

It doesn't take much to look at the map and see that Shapard and Bancroft should be zoned for east of the park middle/high schools that are part of the neighborhoods for those elementary schools.

If you want to offer some persuasive argument why not, I'm happy to be persuaded. But so far, you've just demonstrated that you are an abrasive person. Please convince me with something more than just your ability to call people names.

Not the PP to whom you're responding, but a Bancroft parent. I hope that Bancroft and Shepherd parents can make the effort to be polite and empathetic throughout these difficult policy discussions. We definitely need to be active and engaged on these issues, but we also need to seek to understand where other people are coming from, whether in person or (always more difficult) on an anonymous forum. The bottom line is that every neighborhood in DC deserves a good middle school and high school option.

That said, to the PP who wants persuasive arguments why Bancroft and Shepherd should continue as Deal feeders, those arguments have been provided in this thread and elsewhere over the last several months. It's up to you whether or not you want to engage with those arguments.

I just re-read the thread and discovered that yes, the PP in this thread who is constantly asking others to justify why Bancroft and Shepherd should stay at Deal does have a hidden agenda. Check out the above exchange (remember the part in bold).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP to whom you're responding, but a Bancroft parent. I hope that Bancroft and Shepherd parents can make the effort to be polite and empathetic throughout these difficult policy discussions. We definitely need to be active and engaged on these issues, but we also need to seek to understand where other people are coming from, whether in person or (always more difficult) on an anonymous forum. The bottom line is that every neighborhood in DC deserves a good middle school and high school option.

That said, to the PP who wants persuasive arguments why Bancroft and Shepherd should continue as Deal feeders, those arguments have been provided in this thread and elsewhere over the last several months. It's up to you whether or not you want to engage with those arguments.

I'm the PP you quoted. I appreciate your more measured tone. Maybe we can have a meaningful exchange. I completely agree with everything in your first paragraph. As for your second paragraph, can you please summarize the arguments you consider persuasive? Here is what I've seen:

1. Shepard Park absolutely cannot lose access to Wilson because Shepard Park has had access via some feeder argument for the past few years.
2. Shepard Park absolutely cannot lose access to Wilson because Shepard Park is racially diverse.
3. Bancroft absolutely cannot lose access to Wilson because Wilson is a better high school than Bancroft would have otherwise.

I don't consider any of these arguments particularly persuasive. Many other neighborhoods could make the exact same arguments. Also, these arguments seem more focused on retaining benefits for the particular neighborhoods of the people making the argument, rather than on the interests of DCPS as a whole. But I'm sure there are other arguments I've missed. I'd appreciate you highlighting them for me.

Don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against the Shepard Park or Bancroft neighborhoods. I want them to have great schools. And (unfortunately) I'm not in any neighborhood that benefits from any of these boundary changes, so I've got no personal stake in the outcome. But I get frustrated when I see people (like some PPs) making strident demands, and hurling insults at anyone who dares to disagree, while failing to present any logical support for their positions. Maybe you can provide the logical support that some other PPs have omitted?

And now this, again the part in bold. You can also see the consistent misspelling of "Shepherd" - same poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:43, I've read your post 3 times now. You make many interesting points, and I appreciate your input. Am I correct that your argument for why Bancroft & Shepard Park need to be granted access to Deal & Wilson is because you believe Bancroft & Shepard Park offer additional racial and economic diversity?

I see all your other commentary about other schools and neighborhoods. But I don't see any other arguments specific to Bancroft & Shepard Park. Please let me know if I missed any.

Based on these words in bold: are you aware that Bancroft and Shepherd are already Deal feeders? No-one needs to make an argument why these schools should feed to Deal. They already do. The issue is how to solve over-crowding at Deal: do we need to shrink boundaries and remove a feeder school, and if so, which school. This is not an exercise in which we make a list of all elementary schools in DC and ask which should feed to Deal. It is the reverse - we begin with those that do currently feed and ask which, if any, should be removed.

let me know if I have misunderstood your question.

I'm not sure whether you've misunderstood or not, because you never answered. Can you please answer my question?: Are there any other persuasive arguments for why Bancroft & Shepard Park should feed to Wilson/Deal, besides added diversity they might offer?

To answer your question: Yes, I understand the current scenario, and the current proposal(s) for change. I also understand that there have not yet been any final decisions, so everything is still on the table. I'm just trying to understand why you think Bancroft & Shepard Park should feed to Wilson & Deal. You wrote, upthread, that there are many good reasons why, so I'm trying to list them.

And now this. This is all the same PP. You can catch the same phrases and misspellings. He or she starts off in the thread as very rude, makes some outrageous claims about political dealing and spreads false information, insinuating that Bancroft and Shepherd were not part of Deal before. But then later, switches to passive aggressive ("I am just trying to make a list of the arguments, with an open mind") and says that he/she is well aware that they are feeders.

I cannot figure out what PP hopes to gain by this, but he or she is obviously a manipulative jerk.

[Anonymous]

NP here. In response to the poster who said Bancroft should feed to MacFarland, if you read the fine print in the proposal, Bancroft does get some kind of dual language feeder rights to MacFarland, which is being set up as a dual language middle school (to compete with DCI?). So, if MacFarland pans out, you may see parents with kids in dual language programs (Oyster, Bancroft, Cleveland, Marie Reed) heading there, further relieving the overcrowding at Deal and Wilson and perhaps eventually justifying a shift in boundary patterns for the EOTP dual language feeder schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm the one who wrote "critical mass." Despite what you might claim, it's not code for high-SES. It refers to students and families. If those students and families are motivated, are expecting a school that functions as well as Deal or Wilson, and are willing to work to improve their school, so much the better. I don't see SES as necessarily linked to those characteristics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:43, I've read your post 3 times now. You make many interesting points, and I appreciate your input. Am I correct that your argument for why Bancroft & Shepard Park need to be granted access to Deal & Wilson is because you believe Bancroft & Shepard Park offer additional racial and economic diversity?

I see all your other commentary about other schools and neighborhoods. But I don't see any other arguments specific to Bancroft & Shepard Park. Please let me know if I missed any.

Based on these words in bold: are you aware that Bancroft and Shepherd are already Deal feeders? No-one needs to make an argument why these schools should feed to Deal. They already do. The issue is how to solve over-crowding at Deal: do we need to shrink boundaries and remove a feeder school, and if so, which school. This is not an exercise in which we make a list of all elementary schools in DC and ask which should feed to Deal. It is the reverse - we begin with those that do currently feed and ask which, if any, should be removed.

let me know if I have misunderstood your question.

I'm not sure whether you've misunderstood or not, because you never answered. Can you please answer my question?: Are there any other persuasive arguments for why Bancroft & Shepard Park should feed to Wilson/Deal, besides added diversity they might offer?

To answer your question: Yes, I understand the current scenario, and the current proposal(s) for change. I also understand that there have not yet been any final decisions, so everything is still on the table. I'm just trying to understand why you think Bancroft & Shepard Park should feed to Wilson & Deal. You wrote, upthread, that there are many good reasons why, so I'm trying to list them.

And now this. This is all the same PP. You can catch the same phrases and misspellings. He or she starts off in the thread as very rude, makes some outrageous claims about political dealing and spreads false information, insinuating that Bancroft and Shepherd were not part of Deal before. But then later, switches to passive aggressive ("I am just trying to make a list of the arguments, with an open mind") and says that he/she is well aware that they are feeders.

I cannot figure out what PP hopes to gain by this, but he or she is obviously a manipulative jerk.

Well Sherlock, I'm not sure who here is the manipulative jerk, but it's clear you have different points of view. That's alright, isn't it?

[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 ...

Jeff, I'm not accusing you individually of focusing on parochial interests. Or rather, at least when you have focused on parochial interests, you generally seem to acknowledge what you're doing (if only by signing your posts, which I gather you do each and every time).

Since there were so many posts last night accusing me of some hidden bias (17:55:"Based on this in bold, you are either a Ward 3 resident or else trolling. No-one else would argue ..."), I'm quoting here my self-description from another thread:

Let me make my position clear: I don't live in Ward 3. Not in Shepherd Park, not in Petworth, not in Georgetown, not anywhere that's affected in any way by the current boundary proposal. I get zero benefit, and zero harm, from these proposals. So I've got no self-interest in pushing any particular boundaries. I am hoping to move in the next 1-2 years, and I'm considering several neighborhoods that are affected by these proposals, so I'm watching closely. But I don't really care where the particular boundaries get drawn, since I've got the luxury of choosing after-the-fact. So for better or worse, my only interest is in improving DCPS as a whole.

And here is how I described myself earlier in this thread:

And (unfortunately) I'm not in any neighborhood that benefits from any of these boundary changes, so I've got no personal stake in the outcome.

I'm fairly frustrated by the discussion so far, and I have work to do, so I'm signing off for now. If I join back in later, I'll create a login to avoid some of this confusion and perhaps minimize the (false) accusations.