Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

There are plenty of UMC families IB for Wells/Coolidge who could probably contribute to the improvement of the school if they actually chose to send their kids there. They don’t though. Why would additional UMC families from Lafayette and Shepherd be different?

You...need....a....critical....mass.

Tracking students gets a bad rap, but it does allow for the acquisition of a critical mass. I mean look at Hardy Middle; getting that mass took some time, but now it pretty much is Deal MS south and getting whiter and richer every year. Once Hyde goes mostly IB (which seems happening fast), the entire pyramid goes mostly IB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wants a Montessori middle school.

- current Montessori parent

I think the folks in 6-8 at CHML want it. And the folks who apply to Truth. And some other charter families. And the people IB for Brookland MS who want any sort of specialized program.

But if you're right, and you may well be, then just end CHML at 6th (5th would be better but I understand the model uses 3-grad groupings) and create a few more PK3-K classrooms, which is where the demand really is. When it's done, kids just have rights to their IB middle school. DCPS could test the Montessori program at BMS for a few years and end it if it doesn't get sufficient enrollment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

There are plenty of UMC families IB for Wells/Coolidge who could probably contribute to the improvement of the school if they actually chose to send their kids there. They don’t though. Why would additional UMC families from Lafayette and Shepherd be different?

You...need....a....critical....mass.

Tracking students gets a bad rap, but it does allow for the acquisition of a critical mass. I mean look at Hardy Middle; getting that mass took some time, but now it pretty much is Deal MS south and getting whiter and richer every year. Once Hyde goes mostly IB (which seems happening fast), the entire pyramid goes mostly IB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leaving Lafayette in its current feeder pattern and just moving Shepherd makes sense in that it would give Deal and Wells equal number of feeder schools, and not require Lafayette kids to cross the park. But I think it's politically infeasible to remove only Bancroft and Shepherd from the Deal/JR feeder patterns because those schools have the highest populations of Black and Hispanic students.

Two things that would make the boundary reassignments more palatable would be a commitment to working with DDOT and WMATA on the buses required to get kids where they need to go, and a promise to offer honors English and math...the 6th grade classes would be for kids who score 4s and 5s on the 5th grade PARCC, and 7th and 8th would be based on the previous year's performance and teacher recommendations.

Kids have been crossing west across the park to attend Deal/JR for decades. Why can't Lafayette kids cross it east (apart from the unsaid reasons)?

Because the homes inbound for Shepherd and inbound for Bancroft are closer to Wells than the homes inbound for Lafayette. Remember: bussing emphatically did not work in the 1970s. It's not going to work now (with free WMATA busses) no matter what the In This House We Believe yard signs say. They'll move to MoCo, to safe Deal homes, or reconsider 2nd-tier private and parochial schools that don't appeal to them today or five years ago. See, e.g., Bullis and SJC and WES.

Bancroft is closer to Wells?

No but it's closer to MacFarland, which is where the proposal earlier in this thread would send them (Deal 3.3 miles, MacFarland 1.3 miles). And Shepherd is closer to Wells than Deal: 2 miles vs 4.1 miles.

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.[/quote

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.