Anonymous wrote:Boundaries aside, does anyone else see the problem in this scenario? Why is it that so many families are clammoring to send their children to Deal? Upper income, middle class and lower income families are coming from all over the city.

Shouldn't the real focus be on developing high quality middle schools across the city so that this becomes a non-issue?

Anonymous wrote:

And just to piggyback on this point, I believe the Justice Department issued guidance on how schools districts can consider race/diversity when redrawing boundaries. Pretty confident that Shepherd would stay in the mix.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If a school has to be zoned out of Deal, I don't see the logic of Shepard staying in. It's the most remote geographically from Deal, and east-west transit connections are not great.

But Shepherd is 94% non-white and Deal is 59% non-white. Removing any feeder school that is more diverse than Deal makes Deal less diverse.

This is the fundamental, unsolvable problem with redistricting Deal: the schools that are further away are more diverse. Any redistricting that increases geographic compactness decreases diversity, and vice versa.

There is just no way around this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundaries aside, does anyone else see the problem in this scenario? Why is it that so many families are clamoring to send their children to Deal? Upper income, middle class and lower income families are coming from all over the city.

Shouldn't the real focus be on developing high quality middle schools across the city so that this becomes a non-issue?

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that everyone wants a middle school with lots of high SES families - and there isn't a school with enough of them concentrated in one area (Hardy aside) to make another Deal.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but there are enough middle class families that make active investments in the education of their children to have a well-rounded, high-performing school. Anyone can tell you that simply sitting your child in a room full of upper income children won't make them smarter or better behaved, the same way sitting next to a lower-income child won't have the opposite effect. Wards 4 and 5 in particular have enough middle income (and more and more upper income) families to sustain strong middle schools, if developed properly. Not sure if DCPS is up for it, but its possible.

DCPS, and perhaps more significantly, the government/people of DC are not up to it. Schools west of the park did not improve because city government made a point of doing it. It was the residents who forced change and enrolled their kids - and they did it in spite of the obstacles in front of them. Until this city becomes significantly more efficient and effective in its governance, I don't see how it can quickly make immediate large-scale change.

If you took a map of the city and plotted out where students live and then drew an arrow to where kids enroll in public schools, most arrows would point west and north. Families (rich and poor) gravitate to more affluent areas. It's not a new phenomenon, it isn't just a DC thing, and it's not hard to understand. But it is puzzling to hear the refrain that DC should simply make more high quality middle schools.

Anonymous wrote:Boundaries aside, does anyone else see the problem in this scenario? Why is it that so many families are clamoring to send their children to Deal? Upper income, middle class and lower income families are coming from all over the city.

Shouldn't the real focus be on developing high quality middle schools across the city so that this becomes a non-issue?

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that everyone wants a middle school with lots of high SES families - and there isn't a school with enough of them concentrated in one area (Hardy aside) to make another Deal.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but there are enough middle class families that make active investments in the education of their children to have a well-rounded, high-performing school. Anyone can tell you that simply sitting your child in a room full of upper income children won't make them smarter or better behaved, the same way sitting next to a lower-income child won't have the opposite effect. Wards 4 and 5 in particular have enough middle income (and more and more upper income) families to sustain strong middle schools, if developed properly. Not sure if DCPS is up for it, but its possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundaries aside, does anyone else see the problem in this scenario? Why is it that so many families are clammoring to send their children to Deal? Upper income, middle class and lower income families are coming from all over the city.

Shouldn't the real focus be on developing high quality middle schools across the city so that this becomes a non-issue?

The problem is tha teveryone wants a middle school with lots of high SES families - and there isn't a school with enough of them concentrated in one area (Hardy aside) to make another Deal.

Anonymous wrote:Boundaries aside, does anyone else see the problem in this scenario? Why is it that so many families are clammoring to send their children to Deal? Upper income, middle class and lower income families are coming from all over the city.

Shouldn't the real focus be on developing high quality middle schools across the city so that this becomes a non-issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With respect to Oyster, in boundary kids should go to Hardy (at least those in the Woodley Park area) if they don't want to continue in the Spanish immersion program. Those just across the Calvert St. bridge and along the Adams Mill area could be rezoned for another middle school.

You may not realize that the few in-bounds students (from Woodley Park as well as the western parts of Adams Morgan and Mt. Pleasant) who come to Deal after Oyster were once the most academically motivated Oyster kids. They number among Deal's strongest students. Proximity arguments aside, Deal isn't called upon to absorb very many former Oyster kids each year, and those who do come were the cream of the crop.

As far as re-drawing boundaries though, that hardly makes a difference. They're no more "deserving" than any other Oyster student, which is why they should either go to Adams if they want to continue Spanish, or Hardy if they don't.

"Deservingness" is an odd construction, but the parents of these children have made serious financial investments in their homes explicitly for the sake of access to Oyster/Deal/ Wilson and we claim on that basis. And these students don't leave Adams because they "don't want to continue Spanish", but because their overall academic needs aren't being addressed.
It is silly for UpperNorthwestie parents to target a tiny but especially strong group of students who distinguish themselves at Deal in the course of their general purge of often-weaker-than-J/L/M students from the largely OOB feeder schools and Shepard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With respect to Oyster, in boundary kids should go to Hardy (at least those in the Woodley Park area) if they don't want to continue in the Spanish immersion program. Those just across the Calvert St. bridge and along the Adams Mill area could be rezoned for another middle school.

You may not realize that the few in-bounds students (from Woodley Park as well as the western parts of Adams Morgan and Mt. Pleasant) who come to Deal after Oyster were once the most academically motivated Oyster kids. They number among Deal's strongest students. Proximity arguments aside, Deal isn't called upon to absorb very many former Oyster kids each year, and those who do come were the cream of the crop.

As far as re-drawing boundaries though, that hardly makes a difference. They're no more "deserving" than any other Oyster student, which is why they should either go to Adams if they want to continue Spanish, or Hardy if they don't.

"Deservingness" is an odd construction, but the parents of these children have made serious financial investments in their homes explicitly for the sake of access to Oyster/Deal/ Wilson and we claim on that basis. And these students don't leave Adams because they "don't want to continue Spanish", but because their overall academic needs aren't being addressed.

It is silly for UpperNorthwestie parents to target a tiny but especially strong group of students who distinguish themselves at Deal in the course of their general purge of often-weaker-than-J/L/M students from the largely OOB feeder schools and Shepard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oyster can't really even hold its current preK-8 in the two campuses; it will need significant expansion to hold students for 4 more years; there is barely a playground, much less space for high school sports
also the financial issues with such a small class would mean they had few options for AP, etc...

No one is saying Oyster should be a HS. Rather that Oyster students stay there until 8th. The Shepherd, Lafayette, Murch, Janney and Hearst Boundary for Deal makes geographic sense--even with the Reno School expansion.

If a school has to be zoned out of Deal, I don't see the logic of Shepard staying in. It's the most remote geographically from Deal, and east-west transit connections are not great.

This would be why ginormous SUVs are the transit connection for Shepard kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have any thoughts on OP's original question, which is whether Janney's boundaries would be redrawn? Would it be likely for Janney and/or Murch boundaries be shrunk and Hearst's expanded in light of Hearst's extremely low in-boundary admissions?

Tough call. If I were at Janney, I might be okay with the western end being re-zoned into Mann - it's not quite as packed to the gills. In general, I think anyone would prefer Mann to Hearst (although it would be different parts of the boundary that would move). However, getting moved to Mann would mean giving up Deal for Hardy, which would send me running to Latin/Basis/DCI/etc.

Anonymous wrote:

But our house is. That's the way boundaries work. We are just inside the line for Hearst, and if you removed buildings we could see Deal from our house.

And if you removed some trees and buildings, I could see Russia from my front porch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With respect to Oyster, in boundary kids should go to Hardy (at least those in the Woodley Park area) if they don't want to continue in the Spanish immersion program. Those just across the Calvert St. bridge and along the Adams Mill area could be rezoned for another middle school.

You may not realize that the few in-bounds students (from Woodley Park as well as the western parts of Adams Morgan and Mt. Pleasant) who come to Deal after Oyster were once the most academically motivated Oyster kids. They number among Deal's strongest students. Proximity arguments aside, Deal isn't called upon to absorb very many former Oyster kids each year, and those who do come were the cream of the crop.

As far as re-drawing boundaries though, that hardly makes a difference. They're no more "deserving" than any other Oyster student, which is why they should either go to Adams if they want to continue Spanish, or Hardy if they don't.