Anonymous wrote:practically no one enters Deal via the geographic boundary. Its students come via the feeder elementaries, for which neither Crestwood nor 16th St Hts are in the boundaries.

Number of 6th Graders entering Deal this school year:
Lafayette: 86
Janney: 72
Murch: 53
Bancroft: 44
Eaton: 34
Shepherd: 29
Hearst: 27
Oyster: 11
Key: 6

31 students went to schools from which less than 5 went to Deal, e.g., West, Powell, Brightwood.

They didn't know where 20 students went to school due to errors, moving from somewhere out of state, etc.

All this to say, feeder rights remaining in effect, the best analysis is that there are few Crestwood and 16th Street Heights Deal students and that their losing geographical boundary rights to Deal will have no significant effect on how they access their preferred schools west of Rock Creek Park.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Feeder%20Pattern%20Analysis%20of%20DCPS%20Middle%20or%20MS%26HS%20Education%20Campuses_4.2.14.pdf

All this to say, again, I'm not crying over the tiny numbers of people who are losing boundary rights they aren't using anyway.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering the new boundaries, the prospect of adding Crestwood back into the picture would make the map REALLY look like a gerrymander/salamander.

Surely, there's some way to assure Crestwood families and surrounding that the new middle school will have a variety of classes (including accelerated classes) to appeal to parents? You see it happening at Hardy; why couldn't it happen elsewhere, too?

This was exactly the position that was taken by the neighborhood. "We will go to MacFarland and Roosevelt when they are good enough" was heard as "We will go to MacFarland and Roosevelt". Moreover, we were repeatedly warned that this would be the case and now look like fools.

I disagree that we would make the map more gerrymandered. All you have to do is extend a line from Shepherd Park to Mt. Pleasant. It would actually rationalize the map.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. My only point is, the rest of DC should not care one way or another how things turn out for Crestwood, and no one should consider it a victim or a prize. It is an asterisk and an afterthought.

Anonymous wrote:Considering the new boundaries, the prospect of adding Crestwood back into the picture would make the map REALLY look like a gerrymander/salamander.

Surely, there's some way to assure Crestwood families and surrounding that the new middle school will have a variety of classes (including accelerated classes) to appeal to parents? You see it happening at Hardy; why couldn't it happen elsewhere, too?

Anonymous wrote:Crestwood resident here. I bought in the neighborhood for Deal and Wilson almost three years ago. So did both of my adjacent neighbors who currently have kids in elementary school. We aren't captured in your data. If you care so little about me and my children and my neighbor's kids -- leave us alone and don't pick nasty fights on the Internet. We aren't contributing to Deal overcrowding, but retaining Deal means so very much to us.

Cutting out Crestwood out of Deal and Wilson will absolutely hurt the fabric of our neighborhood community. I don't expect people outside of our neighborhood to understand that, and I guess, if they lack basic human empathy, I suppose they won't care. We have a wonderful block where kids run around and play, we organize informal BBQs and block parties, and we wouldn't be here if it weren't for being IB for Deal and Wilson. I really believe drawing us out of Deal and Wilson will hurt the vibrancy of my neighborhood, and it breaks my heart.

Anonymous wrote:let Crestwood's complaint be its own and no one else's.

One child isn't a trend needing a policy fix. Less than 20 students entering Deal came from unknown places, charters, out-of-state, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. My only point is, the rest of DC should not care one way or another how things turn out for Crestwood, and no one should consider it a victim or a prize. It is an asterisk and an afterthought.

I agree that there is no reason for anyone outside Crestwood to care about Crestwood. Clearly, however, it has been victimized by the proposed boundary changes. You have to be willfully ignorant to suggest otherwise. You are more than welcome to think of us as an asterisk. We probably don't think much of you either. But, don't expect us to stop making our case simply because you have judged us unworthy.

Point being, I don't think anyone else should be particularly interested in changing any larger principles or plans for Crestwood's benefit. Crestwood should go out and get its exception on its own if it can. But I don't want to see plans to open a middle school or new high school slowed down, rules for access out-of-boundary, length of grandfathering, etc., for this number of kids., who just like the Hill families with Eastern, won't use the local system and will go their own way even after they win concessions about, e.g., Eastern.

Anonymous wrote:practically no one enters Deal via the geographic boundary. Its students come via the feeder elementaries, for which neither Crestwood nor 16th St Hts are in the boundaries.

Number of 6th Graders entering Deal this school year:
Lafayette: 86
Janney: 72
Murch: 53
Bancroft: 44
Eaton: 34
Shepherd: 29
Hearst: 27
Oyster: 11
Key: 6

31 students went to schools from which less than 5 went to Deal, e.g., West, Powell, Brightwood.

They didn't know where 20 students went to school due to errors, moving from somewhere out of state, etc.

All this to say, feeder rights remaining in effect, the best analysis is that there are few Crestwood and 16th Street Heights Deal students and that their losing geographical boundary rights to Deal will have no significant effect on how they access their preferred schools west of Rock Creek Park.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Feeder%20Pattern%20Analysis%20of%20DCPS%20Middle%20or%20MS%26HS%20Education%20Campuses_4.2.14.pdf

All this to say, again, I'm not crying over the tiny numbers of people who are losing boundary rights they aren't using anyway.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. My only point is, the rest of DC should not care one way or another how things turn out for Crestwood, and no one should consider it a victim or a prize. It is an asterisk and an afterthought.

I agree that there is no reason for anyone outside Crestwood to care about Crestwood. Clearly, however, it has been victimized by the proposed boundary changes. You have to be willfully ignorant to suggest otherwise. You are more than welcome to think of us as an asterisk. We probably don't think much of you either. But, don't expect us to stop making our case simply because you have judged us unworthy.