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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school?  Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?[/quote]
I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking. I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.[/quote]
I understand your line of thinking -- that some people would rather build a new school and commute to it, just because they think more white students must yield a better school -- but I'm seriously doubting their view is quite so simple. I'm hoping to get someone who is an advocate of a new WotP school to explain how she views it in her own words.[/quote]

No, Jeff is being dense. He still denies that the numbers dictate the need for either (a) reduced OOB access to Wilson or (b) a new HS in the area so that some of the current IB Wilson students (in the pipeline) can be diverted elsewhere. He sometimes appears to support a modified version of (a) in which the reduced access is voluntary due to improvements at Roosevelt. I'd like to see this, too, but one must plan for the possibility these improvements don't merit the voluntary take-up needed to alleviate looming overcrowding.

He's doing even less forecasting than DCPS, which is frightening. Look at the number. Look at the trends. The need will be there shortly, if it isn't there already. [/quote]
10:00 here.  I am having trouble following your line of reasoning.  Instead of pooping on what you think Jeff believes, can you tell me what YOU believe?  Are you an advocate for a new WotP high school?  If so, then why?[/quote]

You're asking me (not previous posters), so I'll reply.

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. 
[b]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. [/b]
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.

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. 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.)

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.)

Does that explain my reasoning better? Feel free to ask additional questions; I'll chime in as available. 
[/quote]

Is it just me, or are people on DCUM very imprecise about option 2b, above? For example, given that the Deal boundary extends EOTP, why would you assume that shrinking the Wilson boundaries means it becomes exclusively WOTP?

The DME and committee, in contrast, are precise (see Policy Option B).

The real work on this issue is not done at the very big picture level like the PP and most posters on this thread (full credit for taking it seriously, though).

The real work is in tweaking Policy Option B as needed, in a very detailed way. For example, DME Smith reportedly said at the Hardy meeting (I was not there - see other thread) that if the Wilson boundaries were shrunk [b]only as far as the current Hardy and Deal boundaries,[/b] this would likely solve the current overcrowding issue.

just to be clear (precise) that means:

1) Wilson boundaries shrunk to Deal and Hardy, which means that no-one currently IB gets cut out of Deal or Hardy and the only families cut from Wilson are those that aren't IB for Deal or Hardy - for example Southwest. 
2) OOB students can stay if they want, now and forever, so long as the schools in question (ES, MS, HS) are still accepting OOB. Currently enrolled OOB students stay and follow the feeder patterns. 
3) anticipating the time in the future when none of the ESs or MSs in this pyramid, or Wilson, will be accepting OOB naturally because they all have a lot of IB interest, have a 10-20% set-aside to ensure that they always take some OOB. This is now necessary at Janney, for example, but isn't yet necessary at Hearst, Murch or Hardy, for example.

The result will be a short-term crowding as all the OOB work their way through. IB will slowly replace OOB, up to the limit of the set-aside. No one gets zoned to a worse MS. Some people may get zoned from Wilson to a worse HS, but, just possibly, these are not people who were really planning on Wilson anyway, with some exceptions. (that is to say, how many people IB for Wilson but not IB for Deal or Hardy are planning on Wilson?)

In the meantime, lots of time to gradually build up schools for the OOB families that will gradually be replaced by IB at the above pyramid.

Emphasis on "gradually".

Does this sound like a reasonable way to go?

[/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