Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Reply to "Feeding Bancroft and Shepherd across park undermines efforts"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous] I gather that your own view is what someone articulated earlier: that the historical link to Wilson & Deal gives Shepherd Park & Bancroft some right to maintain that link, because DCPS wants to change only the bare minimum necessary to ease overcrowding at Wilson/Deal. Is that right?[/quote] My own view is that I'm about to burst a blood vein because people seem so willing to acknowledge the obvious: 1) Historical links don't mean squat. The boundaries have not been revisited since the 1960s. Unless your school closed, your current links are "historic". 2) The DME proposed three examples of student assignment policies. None of the three included geographic boundaries beyond elementary school. 3) Apparently, there was no public outcry demanding geographic boundaries beyond elementary school. 4) Apparently, and there is evidence to support this, there was a public outcry in support of the option that focused on predictable feeder patterns based on neighborhood schools. 5) The Advisory Committee released recommendations reflecting the public input. This heavily favored elementary schools that fed popular middle and high schools. 6) When overcrowding still suggested a need to remove one Deal feeder, Eaton was selected. There are a number of reasons that this was the practical choice, but those can be discussed elsewhere. 7) I don't think there was ever a question -- nor should there be one now -- as to why Bancroft and Shepherd were able to remain as feeders. The appropriate question would have been "why shouldn't they?". There might be some compelling reasons -- particularly for Bancroft -- but those are for others to provide. Myself, I'm satisfied that moving Eaton was the least disruptive choice. [/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