Wouldn't current Bancroft families be grandfathered into their current path? That's how DCPS previously has done it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:
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?

There was a long discussion of this before, but… Bancroft is diverse in that over 60% of the students are Latino. The rest of the population reflects the demographics of its section of ward 1.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

The only thing wrong with MacFarland is that your kids aren't there.

I think Adams is fine! Dunno why people think Deal is really so much better.

Is there room at Adams for Bancroft kids? And would it feed into JR or Roosevelt?

I'd rather see Oyster-Adams become a PK3-5 school and then it and Bancroft can both go to MacFarland and Roosevelt. That feeder pattern has a lot of potential.

Anonymous wrote:I think if it turns into Adams and the JR, families actually aren't going to move en masse. I think it's a reasonable solution.

+1

McFarland and CHEC, on the other hand...

I think if it turns into Adams and the JR, families actually aren't going to move en masse. I think it's a reasonable solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not going to say that most Bancroft parents’ concerns aren’t mainly for their own kids (that’s the case with most parents, right?), but it’s ridiculous to say that profit is the big motivation. Most neighborhood parents feel very strongly about keeping Deal feeder rights for their kids, and very few of them are real estate agents.

And yes, it might have some effect on house prices in the neighborhood, but probably not much. Bancroft will still be very desirable for elementary, and Mt P is an amazing neighborhood in any case.

Losing access to Deal 10 years ago affected the demographics in nearby Kalorama Triangle. Fewer families and especially fewer kids beyond early elementary grades than when the neighborhood fed to Deal.

I foresee this possibility as well. Mount Pleasant ("Mount Pregnant") has boomed as a young family destination over the last decade, and Bancroft's success is an outsized part of that. Yes, a lot of the families skew Caucasian and UMC, but there are a number of Asian, Latino, and Black parents who are fighting these changes as well.

Unsure of the effects on property values (which has been an elephant in the room), but families with the means to move will move. They settled in Mount Pleasant precisely because they wanted their kids to go to Deal/JR. While Adams/JR seemed like a palatable alternative floated in the last meeting, it was overwhelmingly clear in both the Spanish and English meetings that parents don't want to change the status quo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not going to say that most Bancroft parents’ concerns aren’t mainly for their own kids (that’s the case with most parents, right?), but it’s ridiculous to say that profit is the big motivation. Most neighborhood parents feel very strongly about keeping Deal feeder rights for their kids, and very few of them are real estate agents.

And yes, it might have some effect on house prices in the neighborhood, but probably not much. Bancroft will still be very desirable for elementary, and Mt P is an amazing neighborhood in any case.

Losing access to Deal 10 years ago affected the demographics in nearby Kalorama Triangle. Fewer families and especially fewer kids beyond early elementary grades than when the neighborhood fed to Deal.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not going to say that most Bancroft parents’ concerns aren’t mainly for their own kids (that’s the case with most parents, right?), but it’s ridiculous to say that profit is the big motivation. Most neighborhood parents feel very strongly about keeping Deal feeder rights for their kids, and very few of them are real estate agents.

And yes, it might have some effect on house prices in the neighborhood, but probably not much. Bancroft will still be very desirable for elementary, and Mt P is an amazing neighborhood in any case.

My child just graduated from Bancroft so I don't have a dog in the fight anymore. But, I heard Adams could be a middle school option, and it actually makes sense to me. Curious how that went over in the meeting.

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.

There’s a lot of chatter about Bancroft in relation to the boundary study. Bancroft parents, what are your concerns? How do you feel about the latest options?