Grosso comes out against a stand alone middle school for Shaw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are kids in Shaw more special then kids in Takoma or Brightwood that have to go to an untested middle school with weak feeders and heinous Coolidge?

Umm, all DC kids deserve good schools.

But it’s often better to fight battles one at a time.
And all the parents that care about this, in Shaw and Takoma and Brightwood, should support each other. Because all parents that want a good middle school are in this together.

[Anonymous]

Alice Deal for all!!!

[Anonymous]

I'm probably way, way, way late to this. But why were the only options the Banneker site or the Shaw MS site for Banneker's renovation? Aren't there other unused school buildings throughout DC? Unused buildings that weren't set aside for another school (like Shaw MS)? And can't Banneker be literally located anywhere in DC because its an application HS? If kids are really mostly coming from Ward 7 and 8 like the Mayor and the Council tried to portray, shouldn't they have at least considered a suitable site in those areas make it easier for the kids to get to? Or are the kids not predominantly from these Wards? Does it make sense to have a "Shaw" MS that isn't even in Shaw?

As an outsider looking in, none of this makes sense to me. The first and biggest mistake IMO was just looking at the two sites as the only possibilities for Banneker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm probably way, way, way late to this. But why were the only options the Banneker site or the Shaw MS site for Banneker's renovation? Aren't there other unused school buildings throughout DC? Unused buildings that weren't set aside for another school (like Shaw MS)? And can't Banneker be literally located anywhere in DC because its an application HS? If kids are really mostly coming from Ward 7 and 8 like the Mayor and the Council tried to portray, shouldn't they have at least considered a suitable site in those areas make it easier for the kids to get to? Or are the kids not predominantly from these Wards? Does it make sense to have a "Shaw" MS that isn't even in Shaw?

As an outsider looking in, none of this makes sense to me. The first and biggest mistake IMO was just looking at the two sites as the only possibilities for Banneker.

Banneker students come from every ward; many from wards 7 and 8 large numbers also live in Ward 4, 5 and 6. That's why placing it at/near a metro stop was prioritized by the mayor. It is NOT a neighborhood school and placing it in one particular neighborhood doesn't make sense.

Placing a school that is named after, and serves mostly minority students in Shaw with its history as a hub of black culture in the city, played a role too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for Grosso for asking out loud why Shaw parents don't put in effort at Cardozo. He's come to his senses.

How does everyone know they aren’t? Some are. That doesn’t mean the current situation at Cardozo is fixable. DCPS has been asking the school to do a million thing for years. Splitting the middle school out of the high school is the most obvious solution. Cardozo EC is the *only* DCPS education campus that is both 6-12 and by-right for middle and high school. It’s not working, and that’s not the fault of the staff or students there.

Shaw parents are already working to improve Cardozo and Grosso appears to be unaware of it. The active parents' kids are too young to enroll. But DCPS and Grosso need to acknowledge that their neglect of Cardozo over many years makes it harder and is itself a factor in parents not wanting to enroll.

I hate statements like this. You realize there are other people living in Shaw besides those of you that have babies. Some of us have been living here for awhile and were doing things in the Shaw community before you decided to move to this neighborhood for your $5 lattes and Orange Theory. We actually care about the schools too.

I know. Shocking.

DP. And isn't this the problem with the Save Shaw crew? They haven't really reached out to the people whose children are Cardozo-aged or nearing. The immediate PP is right to be angry about the PK parents who want a unicorn.

Definitely. I mean, how dare they want a good school. The nerve.

Because we don't? Or didn't?

Look - I get it. You moved into this neighborhood and had kids (or suddenly realized that little squishy baby one day is going to have to go school). And you struck out at Mundo Minds or Inspired Ying or whatever the flavor of the year is. You can't afford to live up in those fancy houses and go to Janey and have to slum it down here with the rest of us. So what do you do? You want to make your own school. You know you don't have time to create a charter school, because your job at the World Bank or volunteering for Elizabeth Warren doesn't leave much time for that. So fight the city for a new middle school at Shaw.

But here is the thing:

1. A group of parents did that 10 years ago (did you know? did you ask?)
2. You make the rest of us in Shaw look bad (and honestly, many of us will probably be gone and you will finally get your Gap Kids).

So much snark. Where were you? Why weren't you fighting for your neighborhood schools? Did you think that by getting lucky to get an OOB seat WOTP and then scooting into Banneker gave you a pass on fighting for the rest of the kids or for a neighborhood school? People have been fighting for this for over a decade and there are new voices and bodies at the table. Good for all of us. In fact, really good, because if we don't fight for this then we will be left with nothing.

If there's someone in Shaw who looks bad, it's you. You gave up, you throw shade. You don't want to fight, then don't. We'll do the hard work for you.

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm probably way, way, way late to this. But why were the only options the Banneker site or the Shaw MS site for Banneker's renovation? Aren't there other unused school buildings throughout DC? Unused buildings that weren't set aside for another school (like Shaw MS)? And can't Banneker be literally located anywhere in DC because its an application HS? If kids are really mostly coming from Ward 7 and 8 like the Mayor and the Council tried to portray, shouldn't they have at least considered a suitable site in those areas make it easier for the kids to get to? Or are the kids not predominantly from these Wards? Does it make sense to have a "Shaw" MS that isn't even in Shaw?

As an outsider looking in, none of this makes sense to me. The first and biggest mistake IMO was just looking at the two sites as the only possibilities for Banneker.

Banneker students come from every ward; many from wards 7 and 8 large numbers also live in Ward 4, 5 and 6. That's why placing it at/near a metro stop was prioritized by the mayor. It is NOT a neighborhood school and placing it in one particular neighborhood doesn't make sense.

Placing a school that is named after, and serves mostly minority students in Shaw with its history as a hub of black culture in the city, played a role too.

They were going to get a full reno in their current building on Euclid. That was the plan for years, but their new BFF Bowser kept postponing it. That are also has history as a hub of Black culture, no? And is also central and near the metro, no?

Then suddenly they and Bowser decided that only the Shaw building would suffice and that promises to Shaw should be abruptly broken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm probably way, way, way late to this. But why were the only options the Banneker site or the Shaw MS site for Banneker's renovation? Aren't there other unused school buildings throughout DC? Unused buildings that weren't set aside for another school (like Shaw MS)? And can't Banneker be literally located anywhere in DC because its an application HS? If kids are really mostly coming from Ward 7 and 8 like the Mayor and the Council tried to portray, shouldn't they have at least considered a suitable site in those areas make it easier for the kids to get to? Or are the kids not predominantly from these Wards? Does it make sense to have a "Shaw" MS that isn't even in Shaw?

As an outsider looking in, none of this makes sense to me. The first and biggest mistake IMO was just looking at the two sites as the only possibilities for Banneker.

Banneker students come from every ward; many from wards 7 and 8 large numbers also live in Ward 4, 5 and 6. That's why placing it at/near a metro stop was prioritized by the mayor. It is NOT a neighborhood school and placing it in one particular neighborhood doesn't make sense.

Placing a school that is named after, and serves mostly minority students in Shaw with its history as a hub of black culture in the city, played a role too.

But no other application HS needs to be centrally located, so why Banneker? And if as you say, many from wards 7 and 8 are students, it makes even less sense to not have considered sites at least closer to Wards 7 and 8. I'm not saying the Banneker supporters or Shaw MS supporters are right or wrong. I'm saying that the Mayor or DCPS or whoever started this conversation with only looking at two sites really botched it. I'm pretty certain that there would have been other acceptable sites if one tried but looks like no effort was made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm probably way, way, way late to this. But why were the only options the Banneker site or the Shaw MS site for Banneker's renovation? Aren't there other unused school buildings throughout DC? Unused buildings that weren't set aside for another school (like Shaw MS)? And can't Banneker be literally located anywhere in DC because its an application HS? If kids are really mostly coming from Ward 7 and 8 like the Mayor and the Council tried to portray, shouldn't they have at least considered a suitable site in those areas make it easier for the kids to get to? Or are the kids not predominantly from these Wards? Does it make sense to have a "Shaw" MS that isn't even in Shaw?

As an outsider looking in, none of this makes sense to me. The first and biggest mistake IMO was just looking at the two sites as the only possibilities for Banneker.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm probably way, way, way late to this. But why were the only options the Banneker site or the Shaw MS site for Banneker's renovation? Aren't there other unused school buildings throughout DC? Unused buildings that weren't set aside for another school (like Shaw MS)? And can't Banneker be literally located anywhere in DC because its an application HS? If kids are really mostly coming from Ward 7 and 8 like the Mayor and the Council tried to portray, shouldn't they have at least considered a suitable site in those areas make it easier for the kids to get to? Or are the kids not predominantly from these Wards? Does it make sense to have a "Shaw" MS that isn't even in Shaw?

As an outsider looking in, none of this makes sense to me. The first and biggest mistake IMO was just looking at the two sites as the only possibilities for Banneker.

Banneker students come from every ward; many from wards 7 and 8 large numbers also live in Ward 4, 5 and 6. That's why placing it at/near a metro stop was prioritized by the mayor. It is NOT a neighborhood school and placing it in one particular neighborhood doesn't make sense.

Placing a school that is named after, and serves mostly minority students in Shaw with its history as a hub of black culture in the city, played a role too.

But no other application HS needs to be centrally located, so why Banneker? And if as you say, many from wards 7 and 8 are students, it makes even less sense to not have considered sites at least closer to Wards 7 and 8. I'm not saying the Banneker supporters or Shaw MS supporters are right or wrong. I'm saying that the Mayor or DCPS or whoever started this conversation with only looking at two sites really botched it. I'm pretty certain that there would have been other acceptable sites if one tried but looks like no effort was made.

There are not a ton of sites left, tbh, that are big enough. They want to expand Banneker (whether that can happen without loss of performance is TBD). So they wanted Shaw because it is big. Garnet Patterson was rejected bc it is too small. I honestly can't think of another good option. The City Arts building maybe?

[Anonymous]

I never understood the inside-out discussion of Banneker's location in Shaw. In some discussions it was a citywide school. In others it was a local Black institution in Shaw. Or would be if it was in a different place in Shaw? The tension there never seemed to resolve except in favor of whoever seemed to be making an argument at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never understood the inside-out discussion of Banneker's location in Shaw. In some discussions it was a citywide school. In others it was a local Black institution in Shaw. Or would be if it was in a different place in Shaw? The tension there never seemed to resolve except in favor of whoever seemed to be making an argument at the time.

Welcome to dumb and racist DC politics, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never understood the inside-out discussion of Banneker's location in Shaw. In some discussions it was a citywide school. In others it was a local Black institution in Shaw. Or would be if it was in a different place in Shaw? The tension there never seemed to resolve except in favor of whoever seemed to be making an argument at the time.

It is both a city-wide school AND a Shaw institution. Which is where the gentrifying part comes in. It isn't just about the new residents, it's the new, more upscale businesses catering to the wealthier newcomers displacing older businesses that can't pay the new rents. Those threatened or displaced business owners are also a constituency that the mayor and many on the Council are concerned about.

If there were another, large enough building in Shaw to build an EXPANDED Banneker on, it probably would have been on the table. But there isn't.

[Anonymous]

This article helps explain, to me, why Shaw MS vs Banneker became such a flashpoint and continues to be hotly debated. Pls read it all before commenting or just keep moving along.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/black-branding--how-a-dc-neighborhood-was-marketed-to-white-millenials/2017/05/02/68b0ae06-2f47-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html?utm_term=.cbf6eff08f01

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article helps explain, to me, why Shaw MS vs Banneker became such a flashpoint and continues to be hotly debated. Pls read it all before commenting or just keep moving along.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/black-branding--how-a-dc-neighborhood-was-marketed-to-white-millenials/2017/05/02/68b0ae06-2f47-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html?utm_term=.cbf6eff08f01

I read the article all the way through. Make your point though. I don't see the connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never understood the inside-out discussion of Banneker's location in Shaw. In some discussions it was a citywide school. In others it was a local Black institution in Shaw. Or would be if it was in a different place in Shaw? The tension there never seemed to resolve except in favor of whoever seemed to be making an argument at the time.

It is both a city-wide school AND a Shaw institution. Which is where the gentrifying part comes in. It isn't just about the new residents, it's the new, more upscale businesses catering to the wealthier newcomers displacing older businesses that can't pay the new rents. Those threatened or displaced business owners are also a constituency that the mayor and many on the Council are concerned about.

If there were another, large enough building in Shaw to build an EXPANDED Banneker on, it probably would have been on the table. But there isn't.

Explain to me how Banneker is a Shaw institution if it was not previously located there and how Shaw MS, which was previously located at the site (hence its name) is not a Shaw institution. And don't tell me its because the Shaw feeder schools have white kids because the kids are predominately black and Latino.