Anonymous
05/11/2014 17:02
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:Hardy is closer to CHEC than Wilson. I think the high school portion of CHEC could be relcated to the Roosevelt building, and the CHEC re-established as a comprehensive middle and high school, drawing in Hardy/oyster-Adams/Francis Stevens and lincoln@CHECAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:but hardy is 87% oob
So? Both Hardy and Shepherd have high OOB attendance. No real difference there.
Hardy sends more AA/Hispanic kids to Wilson than Shepherd.
Shepherd is closer to Roosevelt than to Wilson.
This means that regardless of whether you care about proximity or care about making sure that AA/Hispanic kids can keep going to Wilson (or both), the answer is that Hardy should keep feeding to Wilson.
Sure, you could do that, if your goal is to make Wilson a lily-white school. This gets back to the original question - if you are concerned about shutting AA/Hispanic kids out of Wilson, why would you consider zoning the middle school that sends the most AA/Hispanic kids to Wilson out of the Wilson feeder pattern?
Anonymous
05/11/2014 17:01
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
there was an earlier poster arguing that Shepherd was 68% OOB and shouldn't feed into Deal and Wilson.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:but hardy is 87% oob
So? Both Hardy and Shepherd have high OOB attendance. No real difference there.
Hardy sends more AA/Hispanic kids to Wilson than Shepherd.
Shepherd is closer to Roosevelt than to Wilson.
This means that regardless of whether you care about proximity or care about making sure that AA/Hispanic kids can keep going to Wilson (or both), the answer is that Hardy should keep feeding to Wilson.
Anonymous
05/11/2014 17:00
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Hardy is closer to CHEC than Wilson. I think the high school portion of CHEC could be relcated to the Roosevelt building, and the CHEC re-established as a comprehensive middle and high school, drawing in Hardy/oyster-Adams/Francis Stevens and lincoln@CHECAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:but hardy is 87% oob
So? Both Hardy and Shepherd have high OOB attendance. No real difference there.
Hardy sends more AA/Hispanic kids to Wilson than Shepherd.
Shepherd is closer to Roosevelt than to Wilson.
This means that regardless of whether you care about proximity or care about making sure that AA/Hispanic kids can keep going to Wilson (or both), the answer is that Hardy should keep feeding to Wilson.
Anonymous
05/11/2014 16:47
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Bancroft parent, why are you opposed to sending your child to an EotP middle school? What's wrong with the EotP schools?
Anonymous
05/11/2014 16:40
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:but hardy is 87% oob
So? Both Hardy and Shepherd have high OOB attendance. No real difference there.
Hardy sends more AA/Hispanic kids to Wilson than Shepherd.
Shepherd is closer to Roosevelt than to Wilson.
This means that regardless of whether you care about proximity or care about making sure that AA/Hispanic kids can keep going to Wilson (or both), the answer is that Hardy should keep feeding to Wilson.
Anonymous
05/11/2014 16:38
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:well, instituting that would require a whole rewrite of the law. As it stands, a parent can decide at any time and for any reason to enroll their child in the public school assigned by boundary, and I'm pretty sure that right is not going to be removed by a policy change. You also don't account for the fact that charters can fold or be shut down, and charters don't start and stop at the same transition points as DCPSAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:there isn't an issue of feeder rights, it's a matter of home addressAnonymous wrote:Families that drop out of the DCPS system and choose to attend charters should lose their feeder rights to attend Wilson[b].
Because the schools are so popular, I - as a pratical matter - lose my right to attend Basis or Latin after 5th grade. Let's take the same approach to Wilson, which is equally as popular.
This would reduce Wilson overcrowding, and have the beneficial impact of enticing a few more IB families to stay with Deal or Hardy instead of heading to charters - so it would make those two schools - Hardy in particular - stronger.
There is an issue of feeder rights - Wilson is overcrowded because too many families have feeder rights or rights to attend Wilson by address. So one solution to this is to eliminate feeder rights or geographic rights to Wilson once a student attends a charter that continues through high school. That charter - which they get to choose - becomes their school of right. Every high school student would retain a matter-of-right school; for some it would be the charter that their parents chose; for others, it would be Wilson.
Yes, it would require a rewrite of the law - but that does not make it a bad idea. It solves a problem - the regular public schools are at a persistent disadvantage because students can drop out of a charter and go back to the public school at any time. So the regular public schools get the "washouts" and the charters cherry pick. Let's fix this problem - make the charters educate all students, just like the regular public schools do. And let parents make the choice if they want feeder/geogrpahic rights at the charter school or at the regular public school.
Anonymous
05/11/2014 16:37
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Thank you. Who would go to the new school? That is, how would this solution ease overcrowding at Wilson? Which feeders are you removing. (That's the hard question, so don't hide from it.)
Not PP, but I think the answer is easy: Powell, Oyster, Bancroft, maybe Shepherd. I'm sure I'm missing a few. This would be predicated on have quality MS and HS destinations.
As other posters have by now told you, Powell does not feed to Deal. Oyster Adams does not feed to Deal, although some households are IB for both Oyster and Deal, so I can understand your misunderstanding there. Oyster Adams is K-8.
Here is a list of the 7 current Deal feeders (you can find this on the Deal website): Janney, Lafayette, Murch, Shepherd, Hearst, Eaton, Bancroft.
Eaton can also choose Hardy (but historically most choose Deal - this may be changing in recent years), and Bancroft can also choose CHEC (but most choose Deal - and this does not appear to be changing at all).
Bancroft stands out in this list. It is true that Hearst and Shepherd, and to a lesser extent Eaton, have had a lot of African-Americans come in OOB and have then fed that diverse student body to Deal/Wilson. But the IB demographics of those schools is much more white and affluent than the student body would suggest (particularly Eaton and Hearst).
Whereas Bancroft has a significant low-income latino and AA population IN BOUNDARY, especially latino. They are housed in the numerous affordable apartment buildings in Mount Pleasant. The graduating class at Bancroft is mostly latino, mostly low income, and many are IB.
If the government removes Bancroft from Deal then they will be denying access, where it existed for decades, for a group of students that is predominantly latino and low-income. The result will be a whiter, wealthier Deal, a Deal that could end up almost three-quarters white in a city school system that is only one quarter white.
And, most crucially, they will be accomplishing this by excluding these racial minority students on the basis of their address in Mount Pleasant. This is basically the dictionary definition of "red-lining" (read the Wikipedia entry for red-lining if you don't know). The textbook case of red-lining is where you find geographical areas with significant populations of racial minorities, and then you exclude those geographical areas from services, from opportunities, from equal quality schools etc. For example, you charge more for mortgages for certain zip-codes, or you re-zone neighborhoods out of desirable schools. You know that you cannot just put a sign on the front door of Deal MS that says "white people only", so instead you re-zone the most diverse neighborhoods out of the school based on address, on some other pretense, perhaps to relieve over-crowding. Sorry for lecturing on the basics to those of you who know our nation's history, but it seems that some on DCUM need a bit of a refresher.
This exclusion of Bancroft from Deal would be:
A) wrong
B) politically foolish
C) the losing side of a civil rights lawsuit
Removing Bancroft from Deal is a complete non-starter. And no-one is proposing it outside of DCUM. Not the DME, not Catania, not Bowser (although she is vague on what she thinks of all of this in general) - not anyone who has an important role in all of this, whom I know of.
Some of you may be thinking, wait, Shepherd and Hearst are majority African-American right now. Wouldn't cutting out either of those schools also give rise to a civil rights claim based on race and red-lining? The answer is, I am not sure, because as I understand it most AAs arrived at those schools via OOB. So it's not such an obvious case of red-lining as it would be for Bancroft. Maybe a claim would succeed, maybe not. I suspect it might turn on what the IB population for those schools looked like. Likewise, I doubt a claim for Woodley Park would succeed (some of which currently is IB for Deal). They have achieved some diversity at Oyster through OOB, but the IB area is very white and affluent.
By all means please continue proposing solutions that create options, as opposed to closing off opportunities. For example, allowing Bancroft and Mount Pleasant to continue to feed to the CHEC MS or to create an optional feed to Adams MS, or create an application-only bilingual MS (note that CHEC HS is application only, but CHEC MS is a neighborhood school). That is all productive conversation. And maybe as the years go by people will choose those options if they start to look good. But NOT if your proposal cuts Bancroft/Mount Pleasant out of Deal involuntarily.
Full disclosure (if it wasn't obvious): Mount Pleasant and Bancroft parent here.
Anonymous
05/11/2014 16:34
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
but hardy is 87% oob
Anonymous
05/11/2014 16:32
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What nobody seems to be able to get into their head, much less accept, is that Wilson is NOT going to be exclusively white and high SES. If that means gerrymandering Hardy into Cardozo, then so be it.
There is no education plan that eliminates Ellington, or removes Shepherd from Deal. (Not without suicide.)
If you are concerned about eliminating non-white, non-SES students from Hardy, how can you possibly put "gerrymandering Hardy into Cardozo" on the table? You do know that Hardy is 78% AA/Hispanic, don
t you? And you do know that Hardy sends more AA/Hispanic students to Wilson than feed into Wilson from Shepherd via Deal, don't you?
If you have to eliminate either Shepherd (via Deal) or Hardy as a Wilson feeder, and you want to ensure that AA/Hispanic students continue to have the opportunity to attend Wilson, then eliminating Shepherd and keeping Hardy is a no-brainer.
I know that Hardy is mostly OOB whereas the Shepherd catchment into Deal is by right of address. So, Shepherd = diversity + proximity. Hardy does not.
This actually makes the case much stronger for Hardy. Shepherd does not have proximity - it is 68% OOB and is closer to Roosevelt. And Hardy sends more AA/Hispanic kids to Wilson than Shepherd (via Deal). So there is really no case at all for cutting out Hardy and leaving in Shepherd. Sorry Shepherd boosters.
Shepherd is 68% OOB. It's really impossible to make a case for one over the other.
Anonymous
05/11/2014 15:08
Subject: Re:Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
... one thing is for sure and that's that Ward 4 WILL continue to feed Deal. If some of Ward 3 gets pushed out so be it. Wilson cannot be exclusively a Ward 3 school.
If you are EotP Ward 4, why are you so opposed to attending an EotP middle school or high school? What is making you refuse to even consider the possibility of attending an EotP school?
Anonymous
05/11/2014 14:14
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What nobody seems to be able to get into their head, much less accept, is that Wilson is NOT going to be exclusively white and high SES. If that means gerrymandering Hardy into Cardozo, then so be it.
There is no education plan that eliminates Ellington, or removes Shepherd from Deal. (Not without suicide.)
You mean if Bowser committed suicide?
There's not much to say of Bowser's record, but one thing is for sure and that's that Ward 4 WILL continue to feed Deal. If some of Ward 3 gets pushed out so be it. Wilson cannot be exclusively a Ward 3 school.
Which is why then you should support a modern, re-opened, academically rigorous Western High School west of the Park. Otherwise, where would you send the Ward 3 students who "get pushed out of Wilson."
Anonymous
05/11/2014 13:47
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Powell already feeds Raymond Education Campus for MS and Roosevelt for HS. This has no effect on the over-crowding at Wilson.
I stand corrected.
Just for the record, Powell feed to Columbia Heights Education Campus rather than Raymond.
I entered an address (1414 Upshur, which is down the street from Powell) into EBIS and got:
Elementary = Powell
Middle = Raymond
High School = Roosevelt
http://dcatlas.dcgis.dc.gov/schools/
Is there some qualifying condition to CHEC?
That is really strange and makes no sense. In that area (which is not far from where I live), the boundaries are a mess There is no consistency between elementary, middle, and high school boundaries and no relationship between those and feeder patterns. For instance, I am inbounds for Powell, Deal, and Wilson. On Upshur between Arkansas and 16th, homes are inbounds for Powell, Deal, and Roosevelt. But, since Deal is a Wilson feeder, that area is essentially inbounds for Wilson because nobody would go to their inbounds middle school (Deal) an then Roosevelt. I'm sure that you would have been inbounds for MacFarland previously. Perhaps when that closed, addresses were redistributed to the area ECs?
That EBIS system is completely out of date and out of whack and has been for awhile. It says my address in Petworth is in-boundary for Powell, Raymond EC and then Cardozo. The new proposed boundaries take many of the kids who currently go to Powell and Bruce Monroe (both dual language) and sends them Raymond and Tubman (neither dual language). For starters, the EC model is screwy and needs to be abolished. Then, programmatic feeders need to be aligned.
Thanks for the clarification. Wow, that is crazy indeed.
Anonymous
05/11/2014 12:47
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Powell already feeds Raymond Education Campus for MS and Roosevelt for HS. This has no effect on the over-crowding at Wilson.
I stand corrected.
Just for the record, Powell feed to Columbia Heights Education Campus rather than Raymond.
I entered an address (1414 Upshur, which is down the street from Powell) into EBIS and got:
Elementary = Powell
Middle = Raymond
High School = Roosevelt
http://dcatlas.dcgis.dc.gov/schools/
Is there some qualifying condition to CHEC?
That is really strange and makes no sense. In that area (which is not far from where I live), the boundaries are a mess There is no consistency between elementary, middle, and high school boundaries and no relationship between those and feeder patterns. For instance, I am inbounds for Powell, Deal, and Wilson. On Upshur between Arkansas and 16th, homes are inbounds for Powell, Deal, and Roosevelt. But, since Deal is a Wilson feeder, that area is essentially inbounds for Wilson because nobody would go to their inbounds middle school (Deal) an then Roosevelt. I'm sure that you would have been inbounds for MacFarland previously. Perhaps when that closed, addresses were redistributed to the area ECs?
That EBIS system is completely out of date and out of whack and has been for awhile. It says my address in Petworth is in-boundary for Powell, Raymond EC and then Cardozo. The new proposed boundaries take many of the kids who currently go to Powell and Bruce Monroe (both dual language) and sends them Raymond and Tubman (neither dual language). For starters, the EC model is screwy and needs to be abolished. Then, programmatic feeders need to be aligned.
jsteele
05/11/2014 12:36
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Powell already feeds Raymond Education Campus for MS and Roosevelt for HS. This has no effect on the over-crowding at Wilson.
I stand corrected.
Just for the record, Powell feed to Columbia Heights Education Campus rather than Raymond.
I entered an address (1414 Upshur, which is down the street from Powell) into EBIS and got:
Elementary = Powell
Middle = Raymond
High School = Roosevelt
http://dcatlas.dcgis.dc.gov/schools/
Is there some qualifying condition to CHEC?
That is really strange and makes no sense. In that area (which is not far from where I live), the boundaries are a mess There is no consistency between elementary, middle, and high school boundaries and no relationship between those and feeder patterns. For instance, I am inbounds for Powell, Deal, and Wilson. On Upshur between Arkansas and 16th, homes are inbounds for Powell, Deal, and Roosevelt. But, since Deal is a Wilson feeder, that area is essentially inbounds for Wilson because nobody would go to their inbounds middle school (Deal) an then Roosevelt. I'm sure that you would have been inbounds for MacFarland previously. Perhaps when that closed, addresses were redistributed to the area ECs?
Anonymous
05/11/2014 12:31
Subject: Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What nobody seems to be able to get into their head, much less accept, is that Wilson is NOT going to be exclusively white and high SES. If that means gerrymandering Hardy into Cardozo, then so be it.
There is no education plan that eliminates Ellington, or removes Shepherd from Deal. (Not without suicide.)
If you are concerned about eliminating non-white, non-SES students from Hardy, how can you possibly put "gerrymandering Hardy into Cardozo" on the table? You do know that Hardy is 78% AA/Hispanic, don
t you? And you do know that Hardy sends more AA/Hispanic students to Wilson than feed into Wilson from Shepherd via Deal, don't you?
If you have to eliminate either Shepherd (via Deal) or Hardy as a Wilson feeder, and you want to ensure that AA/Hispanic students continue to have the opportunity to attend Wilson, then eliminating Shepherd and keeping Hardy is a no-brainer.
I know that Hardy is mostly OOB whereas the Shepherd catchment into Deal is by right of address. So, Shepherd = diversity + proximity. Hardy does not.
Shepherd is 68% OOB. It's really impossible to make a case for one over the other.