Reply to Bancroft-Specific Boundary Study Thread

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Bancroft-Specific Boundary Study Thread"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m a Bancroft parent. There are many underlying issues at play that aren’t PC to discuss.

Bancroft’s principal and another senior Bancroft admin voiced concerns about parents wanting to have it both ways in last week’s townhall. Some of the loudest voices advocating for retaining rights to Deal/JR are also the ones who have the most to lose to their livelihood. e.g. It’s not a good look when neighborhood realtor residents/parents are arguing for “diversity” when clearly a shift would impact their bottom line.[/quote]

Diversity?   They should be looking how to make the demographics of Bancroft much closer to that of Ward 1.  How can a Ward 1 school only be 4% Black?[/quote]

I think the gist here is that non-POC UMC Mount Pleasant parents are arguing that Bancroft adds Latino diversity to Deal/JR (a central argument the last time boundaries were studied).  This is the demographic opposed to removing the lower boundary streets as proposed (expensive, mostly SFH properties on Hobart/Irving/Kenyon) to help bring in kids at the upper boundary (more Latino families and students from lower cost housing, like the Woodner).

Some of the more vocal advocates for maintaining the current geographical feeder pattern (Deal/JR) are non-POC Bancroft parents who are also dominant Mt. P real estate sellers/buyers agents. I think the PP was pointing this out, and they're not wrong. The existing pattern is a reason people pay a premium to live in Mount Pleasant vs. neighboring communities. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics