Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.
Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.
Hyperbole, really. Some of you seem to ascribe a lot of change-making ability to a small group of families in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights, maybe a few dozen families in total? Crestwood and 16th St Heights have small populations of school-aged kids. They will not make or break MacFarland.
I am constantly hearing about how Petworth is rapidly gentrifying. If that is true, then that will be what drives the future of MacFarland. It's a far larger and far more dense area of the new MacFarland boundary than these other, more western neighborhoods.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.
Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.
Hyperbole, really. Some of you seem to ascribe a lot of change-making ability to a small group of families in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights, maybe a few dozen families in total? Crestwood and 16th St Heights have small populations of school-aged kids. They will not make or break MacFarland.
I am constantly hearing about how Petworth is rapidly gentrifying. If that is true, then that will be what drives the future of MacFarland. It's a far larger and far more dense area of the new MacFarland boundary than these other, more western neighborhoods.
Anonymous wrote:How will DCPS deal with Deal at 2000 students and Wilson at 2500?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.
Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:how so?Anonymous wrote:Shepherd has a fine future. It's the present that's the problem...
Ignore this PP. Shepherd is a great IB school with a solid reputation. This is the same poster that refuses to let Shepherd be added to the EHJKLMMORSS term. Doesn't matter what this poster says. Many of us at another one of these schools wouldn't go to some JKLMs even if we had a spot.
I agree that Shepherd is good, but LOL at "EHJKLMMORSS". Is that really a thing? Aren't these acronyms getting a little bit cumbersome??
Anonymous wrote:So beyond the Post article, anyone have a lead on where we see the tweaks in writing so that we can determine if the Post captured the breadth of the grandfathering accurately?
Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:how so?Anonymous wrote:Shepherd has a fine future. It's the present that's the problem...
Ignore this PP. Shepherd is a great IB school with a solid reputation. This is the same poster that refuses to let Shepherd be added to the EHJKLMMORSS term. Doesn't matter what this poster says. Many of us at another one of these schools wouldn't go to some JKLMs even if we had a spot.
Anonymous wrote:How will DCPS deal with Deal at 2000 students and Wilson at 2500?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:how so?Anonymous wrote:Shepherd has a fine future. It's the present that's the problem...
Ignore this PP. Shepherd is a great IB school with a solid reputation. This is the same poster that refuses to let Shepherd be added to the EHJKLMMORSS term. Doesn't matter what this poster says. Many of us at another one of these schools wouldn't go to some JKLMs even if we had a spot.
Anonymous wrote:how so?Anonymous wrote:Shepherd has a fine future. It's the present that's the problem...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:It does not impact Eaton as Hardy is already an opened middle school. It only impacts kids that were IB for Deal and were going to be grandfathered for a few years after Macfarland opened. Now they stay until 2022 regardless of when Macfarland opens.
Not to nitpick, okay, to nitpick, the previous plan didn't contain any grandfathering once MacFarland opened. That was part of our complaints because we didn't know when MacFarland would open and it would become our assigned school on day 1. It made planning impossible.
My bad, you're right. I just had it in my head that would be a tweak that was going to happen. Only seems like the fair thing to do.
No, the fair thing was to tell them that unless and until McFarland opens, they can continue to attend Deal. Assure them that there will be at least one full school year's warning before the opening of McFarland.
That's fair. This is just the first step towards granting the neighborhood rights to Deal and Wilson in perpetuity. The rest of the city EOTP should be pissed off right now.