Reply to Feeding Bancroft and Shepherd across park undermines efforts

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Feeding Bancroft and Shepherd across park undermines efforts"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][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". ...

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]
I'm sorry you're frustrated, Jeff.  FWIW, I'm not some contrarian who's bashing the DME's proposal; I actually think it's pretty good on most points.

With regard to Shepherd and Bancroft though, one of the things that confuses me is the inter-play between your points 1 and 7.  I agree with your #1 that historical links don't (and shouldn't) be dispositive in making decisions; DCPS needs to formulate a plan that's best for the system as a whole, not any particular neighborhood.  But that seems to fly in the face of your #7 (and similar points others make) that Shepherd and Bancroft get preference because of their status as middle-school feeders.  Am I misunderstanding you?

Also, on your question about "why [i]shouldn't[/i] Bancroft & Shepherd feed to Deal/Wilson?," here are just a few half-baked thoughts:

[b]1. Some people have made the point that current demographics for Ward 3 suggest that in-bounds crowding will continue to increase for Wilson/Deal.  I worry that DME's proposal might not cut deeply enough.  I'd prefer that we're not all back here in 5 years talking again about how to re-readjust the boundaries because Deal & Wilson are overcrowded again.  I have not double-checked the numbers myself yet, but the idea we might NOT be solving the overcrowding problem concerns me.[/b]

2. I think part of DME's plan is to build up McFarland & Roosevelt, which is something that makes sense to me.  I think part of accomplishing that goal is to push more engaged families into those schools, via boundary changes.  To give those schools the best chance of success, I think DCPS should increase the number of families going to those schools.  [u]Communities like Bancroft & Shepherd -- just like Crestwood -- would help build critical mass at McFarland & Roosevelt. [/u] Both of those neighborhoods are closer to Mcfarland/Roosevelt than to Deal/Wilson, so the idea of "neighborhood schools" would seem to benefit from routing the feeder patterns that way.

3. I've still seen very few compelling reasons so far why any one of these neighborhoods truly deserves preference over another.  Sure, there are some distinguishing characteristics, but I'm betting some smart person (or in the absence of a smart person, someone like me) could easily formulate counter-arguments about why other neighborhoods are more deserving.

I have grown very frustrated throughout this whole boundary process at how many people (from each and every different neighborhood) seem to feel their own particular neighborhood has some inviolable right to the most-desired schools, and that other neighborhoods should be forced out instead.  [i]Hardly anyone seems focused on what's best for DCPS as a whole. [/i] I suspect part of my agitation about this topic arose when I was seeing the same narrow parochial interests appearing here.

If it's just too annoying to everyone else to have to support their positions, I can drop it.  FWIW though, I still don't see any logical reason Shepherd and Bancroft ought to be linked to Wilson/Deal.  And since I did not start this thread, I suspect I'm not alone.[/quote]

Based on this in bold, you are either a Ward 3 resident or else trolling. No-one else would argue for the DME to cut more feeders out of Deal than is strictly necessary. If you are at a Ward 3 Deal feeder that is not Eaton, then I think you are over-reacting to the crowding issue. The DME has projected, with access to all the data, that the proposed solution solves the crowding for the foreseeable future. If you are in a neighborhood removed from Deal, then I am at least empathetic. If none of the above, then you are unaffected by the topic of this thread and just trying to stir up trouble on the internet.

As for the underlined statement, this again, really? Gratuitously removing people from good schools thinking you can force them to help build struggling ones? In the case of Shepherd, it's majority OOB anyway so who are you forcing? In the case of Bancroft, the demographics are posted above. It's a Title I school. Possibly the only Title I school in the entire Wilson pyramid? Are those the families you are recruiting for MacFarland, even if it means them losing out on the great opportunities at Deal? Don't they face enough challenges in life without being obligated to build your middle school? Can't they just catch a break and attend Deal, which has been built up by others? For sure, these families are not posting on DCUM in large numbers. It's more likely the minority of higher-SES Mount Pleasant families who post here, and who attend all these community input meetings in far-flung corners of the city. Same with Shepherd. But the DME knows the true demographics which you choose to ignore.

Finally, the statement in italics: the DME committee cares about DCPS as a whole, and their proposal has been published.

Thanks for your faux concern. 
[/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