Reply to Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]10:00 again.  Thanks for your response, 10:46.  Below are comments.
[quote]I look at the current enrollment numbers, combine them with population and student projections (which, historically, have been far too conservative about growth in upper NW), and I see a looming capacity issue at Wilson. Judging by how quickly Deal turned-around, the problem is only a few years away. In short, I don't believe that Wilson-as-currently-constructed can accommodate all of the students who currently have "rights" to it.

There are several solutions: 
1) Build capacity at Wilson. The problem here is that Wilson is already a fairly large school as far as the optimal-size-literature goes, or so I'm told. (I haven't read these studies myself, so this stance could be completely wrong.) 
2) Remove students currently having "right" to Wilson. This can take a few forms: 
2a) Remove OOB rights. While this will solve the problem today, and for the next few years, I don't believe it will be a long-term solution as Hardy flips from OOB to IB over the next half-decade (like Deal before it). Plus, there are still tons of areas with "by right" access to Wilson; Wilson's catchment basin is absurd, extending from lower SW all the way up through Shepard Park in the far top EOTP. It's, literally, like half of the city. 
2b) Shrink the catchment basin boundaries for Wilson, cleaving off areas EOTP and the SW. This would leave Wilson as, basically, the by-right high school for WOTP. 
2c), similar to (2b), remove feeder schools, like Hardy. 
Both 2b and 2c require finding another place to house these displaced students. For 2b, that would be at other existing schools. Since most of the students removed under 2b are already closer to another HS than Wilson, this seems logical. These other HSs, however, are not currently of the same quality as Wilson, so I'm hesitant to send these students to a failing school. For 2c, this would require creating a new HS. It is entirely unreasonable to force students to trek across the city for their by-right HS. If they chose to do so for one reason or another, fine. But you cannot make their neighborhood HS be far away. Period. [/quote]
I agree with almost everything you wrote here.  My major disagreement is that I don't necessarily agree 2c results in forcing children to trek east across the park to a faraway school.  I think feeder rights can be reduced, perhaps in conjunction with 2b boundary changes, in a way that makes geographic and commuter sense for everyone.  Therefore, I don't think 2b or 2c requires building new schools WotP.

And while I agree no one - no matter where they live - will want to send children to a failing school under 2b or 2c, I still don't see how building a new school rather than reinvigorating an existing school will ensure success.  Yes, Roosevelt is a weak option today, but that's the whole point of DCPS improving its programs.  And diverting lots of motivated kids and involved parents into Roosevelt will cause further improvements.  By comparison, a not-yet-built school in NWDC lacks any positive track record and is no more likely to be any good than Roosevelt.  If a new school is built in NWDC, then I'd imagine a likely outcome might be closing Roosevelt or other EotP schools, and diverting their students to the new NWDC school, which means it's essentially the same student body either way.
[quote]So, because I believe that 2a -- removing OOB "rights" -- would be politically unpalatable, and because I believe that students shouldn't be relegated from a good school to a failing school (2b), I'm left to support 2c as a last resort. Implicit in this support is that I believe the new HS created in NWNW would be good and not suffer from the same problem as 2b. That is, I don't believe that moving students currently IB for Wilson to a newly created NW HS would be equivalent to sending them to Cardozo or Roosevelt-as-of-now. [/quote]
See above.  I don't agree a NWDC school will be any better than Roosevelt.  It certainly will be more expensive, and it makes little sense from a geography/commuter angle, since a huge portion of students will be traveling from EotP to these schools.

I get that it will be politically difficult to limit access to some WotP schools.  However, I foresee similar political strife when someone proposes sinking more money into a fancy new set of schools for NWDC, while there are existing schools in other parts which are underutilized.  I see lots of ugly, and racially divisive storylines evolving from that approach.
[quote]Furthermore, looking at the numbers and projections, I would expect this school to be largely filled with IB students. (This is where I differ most with Jeff. He seems to deny -- or, perhaps, hasn't consulted the projections and looked at the recent trends -- that there would be sufficient mass/need for another HS for these students. I'm confident that he's wrong.) [/quote]
I'm not sure I agree with this.  Can you unpack your math?
[quote]Really, 2c is the worst option. 1 and 2a are so much easier. And 2b is easier too. But, reality leads me to suspect 2c is the most viable option going-forward. I am reluctant in reaching this conclusion. (I personally asked DME to make a public statement supporting option (1). She declined, saying that she believed 2b was a better solution and that with 2b, 1 is no longer needed.) [/quote]
As noted above, I think some combination of 2b and 2c (without building a new NWDC school) makes sense.  
[quote]Does that explain my reasoning better? Feel free to ask additional questions; I'll chime in as available. [/quote]
Very helpful.  Please continue to contribute.[/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