Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was going to respond with the same. Also, Takoma doesn't feed to Deal. Plus many of the Shepherd Park, Crestwood, Bancroft kids that you are quoting are coming from Deal FEEDERS. That is the issue more than anything.

First, I agree some are coming through feeders. For example, the Shepherd Park kids are coming right through Shepherd Park Elementary. If we remove that elementary school from the Deal feeder pattern, it essentially eliminates at least that many students from Deal, right?

Second, I'm not sure how you know how many kids from each area are coming from feeders versus coming from the Deal boundary that was mismatched to feeders. If you have details, I'd be interested to read them. Please post a link.

Third, the original point remains that Deal is overcrowded, and if we don't have some ability to physically increase the size of the school or shrink the kids to pint-size elves, the only way to relieve overcrowding is to reduce the number of kids. The only way I see to reduce the number of kids is to shrink the boundaries. Please let me know if you have a more effective idea.

I understand it sucks to fear you might lose your access rights to Deal. If I lived in Shepherd Park or Crestwood, I'd sure want to preserve my kids' access to Deal too. I'd likely make some of the same arguments those families are making, and I'd probably try to pull the same political strings with Mayor Bowser's team. But speaking objectively as someone who is so completely and fully outside the Deal orbit that I simply have zero personal bias in this fight, I tell you it just doesn't make sense here.

Where is Shepherd Park elementary? Is it a good school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was going to respond with the same. Also, Takoma doesn't feed to Deal. Plus many of the Shepherd Park, Crestwood, Bancroft kids that you are quoting are coming from Deal FEEDERS. That is the issue more than anything.

First, I agree some are coming through feeders. For example, the Shepherd Park kids are coming right through Shepherd Park Elementary. If we remove that elementary school from the Deal feeder pattern, it essentially eliminates at least that many students from Deal, right?

Second, I'm not sure how you know how many kids from each area are coming from feeders versus coming from the Deal boundary that was mismatched to feeders. If you have details, I'd be interested to read them. Please post a link.

Third, the original point remains that Deal is overcrowded, and if we don't have some ability to physically increase the size of the school or shrink the kids to pint-size elves, the only way to relieve overcrowding is to reduce the number of kids. The only way I see to reduce the number of kids is to shrink the boundaries. Please let me know if you have a more effective idea.

I understand it sucks to fear you might lose your access rights to Deal. If I lived in Shepherd Park or Crestwood, I'd sure want to preserve my kids' access to Deal too. I'd likely make some of the same arguments those families are making, and I'd probably try to pull the same political strings with Mayor Bowser's team. But speaking objectively as someone who is so completely and fully outside the Deal orbit that I simply have zero personal bias in this fight, I tell you it just doesn't make sense here.

I don't live in either but if I lived in SP, I would feel just fine. There is no way in God's green earth they will be cut out of Deal. If they were, Lafayette would go to. If that happens, the new MS may be very competitive with Deal. Either way, just because a Janney family that is alergic to so many brown kids says something doesn't mean it will happen. I notice you don't mention Bancroft. Is there a reason? My suggestion to alleviate Deal will never be accepted either - cut off feeder rights.

Anonymous wrote:Most of the kids in the numbers quoted come to Deal via Hearst and previously Eaton. After coming across you Janney parents in this forum, I don't know if I want my kid attending MS with families like you. You really make me sick. But guess what dear? Your wish will never come true. You will continue to have to send your kid to middle school with brown kids. If you don't like it, move to Maine.

I'm sorry you're upset with my views. But you keep going off-course when you try to paint me as some lily-white Janney parent afraid of "brown kids." I don't live anywhere near Upper Northwest, or anywhere in NW. My neighborhood and my kids' schools are just as racially mixed as yours, probably more so. You should consider curbing your racial bias and assumptions.

Anonymous wrote:I was going to respond with the same. Also, Takoma doesn't feed to Deal. Plus many of the Shepherd Park, Crestwood, Bancroft kids that you are quoting are coming from Deal FEEDERS. That is the issue more than anything.

First, I agree some are coming through feeders. For example, the Shepherd Park kids are coming right through Shepherd Park Elementary. If we remove that elementary school from the Deal feeder pattern, it essentially eliminates at least that many students from Deal, right?

Second, I'm not sure how you know how many kids from each area are coming from feeders versus coming from the Deal boundary that was mismatched to feeders. If you have details, I'd be interested to read them. Please post a link.

Third, the original point remains that Deal is overcrowded, and if we don't have some ability to physically increase the size of the school or shrink the kids to pint-size elves, the only way to relieve overcrowding is to reduce the number of kids. The only way I see to reduce the number of kids is to shrink the boundaries. Please let me know if you have a more effective idea.

I understand it sucks to fear you might lose your access rights to Deal. If I lived in Shepherd Park or Crestwood, I'd sure want to preserve my kids' access to Deal too. I'd likely make some of the same arguments those families are making, and I'd probably try to pull the same political strings with Mayor Bowser's team. But speaking objectively as someone who is so completely and fully outside the Deal orbit that I simply have zero personal bias in this fight, I tell you it just doesn't make sense here.

With regard to the concern expressed in some posts that todays "tweaks" will undermine MacFarland and Roosevelt, here is my view. The changes announced today might actually help those schools:

1. Today's changes probably won't change the number of neighborhood children attending Deal and Wilson, but they also won't reduce the number that would have potentially gone to MacFarland or Wilson. The previous boundary changes had caused something close to panic in Crestwood (I can't speak for 16th Street Heights, but I would not be surprised if it was true there as well). In that atmosphere, few were willing to hear arguments in favor of MacFarland or Roosevelt. Just about everyone was thinking of a way to avoid being forced into them, whether that be by moving, going private, getting into Deal/Wilson feeders, or charters. So, the analysis that there are currently X number of kids that go to Deal and Wilson and, therefore, today's changes mean X less for MacFarland and Roosevelt is incorrect. Not many were likely to go to MacFarland or Roosevelt.

2) The previous changes would have reduced interest in the neighborhood among those interested in DCPS. The improvements at Powell and West had just started attracting new residents (whereas Deal and Wilson have always attracted residents). However, uncertainty about the middle and high schools could reduce the attractiveness of West and Powell and made Crestwood less popular among those interested in DCPS. So, today's changes will likely attract new residents committed to DCPS from pre-K through 12.

3) The safety valve of Deal and Wilson will allow residents -- especially those with younger children -- to look at MacFarland and Roosevelt more objectively. Residents may be more willing to get involved with or seriously consider those schools knowing that they have good fallback options. To the extent that the Deal/Wilson grandfathering helps attract families that are also interested in West or Powell, those families will be incentivized to remain a part of those communities at MacFarland and, later, Roosevelt.

The bottom line is that DCPS could not force people with options to attend schools against their will. As a result, few neighborhood residents were ever going to attend MacFarland/Roosevelt prior to 2022 in any case. Now that they are not being forced, some residents will consider the options as a choice. This evaluation will occur in a much more positive atmosphere. To the extent that Crestwood and 16th Street Heights contribute to overcrowding at Deal/Wilson, that is simply further encouragement to consider MacFarland and Roosevelt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

Yeah because cutting the 12 kids from Crestwood and the 30 from Shepherd are going to make things A-ok at Deal.

Well, according to the Code for DC map (http://edu.codefordc.org/#!/school/405), you're exaggerating substantially how few students come to Deal from those neighborhoods. Here is a sample of the Deal students from some other areas and how they might reduce enrollment:

Shepherd Park area - 64 students
Takoma area - 63 students
Crestwood/Petworth area - 128 students
Mt. Pleasant area - 107 students
Total - 362 students

Deal enrollment without those students - 943 (back what it was in 2011)

Your numbers don't dispute what the PP wrote about Crestwood and Shepherd Park. Your numbers are for all 3 years at Deal (so actually fewer than the 30 students per year that PP suggested for Shepherd) and Crestwood is lumped in with Petworth, which is a very large area. Those kids from Petworth are all OOB at Hearst, Eaton, etc.

First, I don't think PP's reference to "12 from Crestwood" and "30 from Shepherd" ever suggested it was a per-year number. If that's what she meant, then she was being misleading by not including the multi-year totals. Either way, it's indisputably a large number of kids coming from those neighborhoods to Deal, so removing them from the Deal boundary would help relieve overcrowding. Second, I get that Crestwood is lumped together with Petworth and other neighborhoods, so it's tough to get a read on exactly how many kids (total or per-year) are attending Deal from just Crestwood. But my point still stands that if the 128 kids from those collective neighborhoods begin attending another middle school besides Deal, it will help reduce overcrowding at Deal. (And just so we're clear, I know it's unlikely to be those exact same 128 kids, because they'll have grandfather rights even before today's "tweaks," so we're really talking about a roughly equivalent number of future kids.)

I stand by my view that the only way to reduce enrollment at Deal is to shrink the boundaries. And those neighborhoods are the clearly obvious choice to be removed, because they are farthest away and because there are other middle schools that could absorb the kids. I hear the other PP's point about instead shifting the southern boundary of Deal, and pushing more kids to Hardy. That's a hypothetical option too, if Hardy has the capacity to absorb the excess. My sense is that Hardy is more limited because of it's location.

Most of the kids in the numbers quoted come to Deal via Hearst and previously Eaton. After coming across you Janney parents in this forum, I don't know if I want my kid attending MS with families like you. You really make me sick. But guess what dear? Your wish will never come true. You will continue to have to send your kid to middle school with brown kids. If you don't like it, move to Maine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

Yeah because cutting the 12 kids from Crestwood and the 30 from Shepherd are going to make things A-ok at Deal.

Well, according to the Code for DC map (http://edu.codefordc.org/#!/school/405), you're exaggerating substantially how few students come to Deal from those neighborhoods. Here is a sample of the Deal students from some other areas and how they might reduce enrollment:

Shepherd Park area - 64 students
Takoma area - 63 students
Crestwood/Petworth area - 128 students
Mt. Pleasant area - 107 students
Total - 362 students

Deal enrollment without those students - 943 (back what it was in 2011)

Your numbers don't dispute what the PP wrote about Crestwood and Shepherd Park. Your numbers are for all 3 years at Deal (so actually fewer than the 30 students per year that PP suggested for Shepherd) and Crestwood is lumped in with Petworth, which is a very large area. Those kids from Petworth are all OOB at Hearst, Eaton, etc.

I was going to respond with the same. Also, Takoma doesn't feed to Deal. Plus many of the Shepherd Park, Crestwood, Bancroft kids that you are quoting are coming from Deal FEEDERS. That is the issue more than anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, fair enough. Let's go with your proposal. I agree there will be some planning money in the 2016 budget, but I say 2017 will just have more planning money. Real substantial renovation money won't come until the 2018 or 2019 budget, and we won't have the school open before 2019.

Wait, I think I win at this stage. Look at the FAQs that Jeff posted - they say opening in 2017/2018 depending on the extent of the modernization. Now you can feel free to revisit this win once the actual budgets come in...

Well that FAQ sets an even easier line for us because we can avoid mucking around with budgets. Why don't we revise the bet slightly, so that you win if it actually opens in 2017 as apparently planned. I'll give you 2018 too. If opening occurs in 2019 or later, I win. Agreed?

I accept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

Yeah because cutting the 12 kids from Crestwood and the 30 from Shepherd are going to make things A-ok at Deal.

Well, according to the Code for DC map (http://edu.codefordc.org/#!/school/405), you're exaggerating substantially how few students come to Deal from those neighborhoods. Here is a sample of the Deal students from some other areas and how they might reduce enrollment:

Shepherd Park area - 64 students
Takoma area - 63 students
Crestwood/Petworth area - 128 students
Mt. Pleasant area - 107 students
Total - 362 students

Deal enrollment without those students - 943 (back what it was in 2011)

Your numbers don't dispute what the PP wrote about Crestwood and Shepherd Park. Your numbers are for all 3 years at Deal (so actually fewer than the 30 students per year that PP suggested for Shepherd) and Crestwood is lumped in with Petworth, which is a very large area. Those kids from Petworth are all OOB at Hearst, Eaton, etc.

First, I don't think PP's reference to "12 from Crestwood" and "30 from Shepherd" ever suggested it was a per-year number. If that's what she meant, then she was being misleading by not including the multi-year totals. Either way, it's indisputably a large number of kids coming from those neighborhoods to Deal, so removing them from the Deal boundary would help relieve overcrowding. Second, I get that Crestwood is lumped together with Petworth and other neighborhoods, so it's tough to get a read on exactly how many kids (total or per-year) are attending Deal from just Crestwood. But my point still stands that if the 128 kids from those collective neighborhoods begin attending another middle school besides Deal, it will help reduce overcrowding at Deal. (And just so we're clear, I know it's unlikely to be those exact same 128 kids, because they'll have grandfather rights even before today's "tweaks," so we're really talking about a roughly equivalent number of future kids.)

I stand by my view that the only way to reduce enrollment at Deal is to shrink the boundaries. And those neighborhoods are the clearly obvious choice to be removed, because they are farthest away and because there are other middle schools that could absorb the kids. I hear the other PP's point about instead shifting the southern boundary of Deal, and pushing more kids to Hardy. That's a hypothetical option too, if Hardy has the capacity to absorb the excess. My sense is that Hardy is more limited because of it's location.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alice Deal enrollment over the years (with citations)

2009-10 - 866 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/DCPS-School-Profile-DEAL-Jan-11.pdf)
2010-11 - 867 (http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/Learn-About-Schools/DCPS-Middle-School-Guide-2010-2011.pdf)
2011-12 - 1014 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/deal2012.pdf)
2012-13 - 1165 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/405_2013.pdf)
2013-14 - 1248 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Deal+Middle+School)
2014-15 - 1305 (http://alicedeal.org/faq-the-deal-facts/)

The plan Mayor Bowser just "tweaked" was supposed to stem this flow. I fear she may be pouring water back into the boat.

Great, now why don't you post up the stats for Janney's growth? Want to know which of the Deal feeders is causing the Deal population to increase? Here's a hint, it's WOTP and leads the JKLM acronym. Lafayette too, although census predictions point to declining enrollment there over the next 10 years.

I don't get your point. I don't really care how much each individual feeder school is bloating Deal's enrollment; I just want the enrollment to drop. You seem like you might have some vendetta against Janney. If your solution to Deal's overenrollment is for DCPS to build another middle school in Upper Northwest, I'm sure all the people who live there will be very happy. But IMHO that seems like a poor approach. Also, I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to what would be perceived as even more favors for Upper Northwest.

Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

Yeah because cutting the 12 kids from Crestwood and the 30 from Shepherd are going to make things A-ok at Deal.

They are not 12+30 kids. They are (12+30) x 3 years = 126 kids - THEY LOOK LIKE A LOT TO ME

And they are (12+30) x 5 years at Wilson = 210 kids - THEY LOOK LIKE A SUPER LOT TO ME

Plus it's much more than this given the demographic trends

And shouldn't any FAQ actually be based upon something official, like a formal policy, rule or reg? Where is the source material for the FAQ? Or have FAQs become our official documents of record on District policies?

Anonymous wrote:Based on the FAQ which I have admittedly not read closely, there still seems to be confusion because the FAQ doesn't define what it means by "new" middle school. Do they mean "new" as in not built or opened yet (MacFarland, Ward 4, etc.) or "new" as in this year we are assigned to one middle school (Deal) but next year we're assigned to another (Hardy). Very confusing and people will embrace the interpretation that works best for them.

The answer to this is implied in the answer to the second question in the FAQ:

"The first new middle school to reopen will be MacFarland, with an expected opening of SY17 or SY18 depending on the extent of the school’s modernizations."

So, while this grandfathering won't apply to Eaton, it looks like it might in the case of other "new middle schools" that open before 2022.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, fair enough. Let's go with your proposal. I agree there will be some planning money in the 2016 budget, but I say 2017 will just have more planning money. Real substantial renovation money won't come until the 2018 or 2019 budget, and we won't have the school open before 2019.

Wait, I think I win at this stage. Look at the FAQs that Jeff posted - they say opening in 2017/2018 depending on the extent of the modernization. Now you can feel free to revisit this win once the actual budgets come in...

Well that FAQ sets an even easier line for us because we can avoid mucking around with budgets. Why don't we revise the bet slightly, so that you win if it actually opens in 2017 as apparently planned. I'll give you 2018 too. If opening occurs in 2019 or later, I win. Agreed?

Given that it focuses exlusively on maintaining EOTP access to Deal and specifically states dual feeders to Deal and nearby education campuses, I think it's safe to say those of us WOTP that got zoned out of Deal remain zoned out of Deal.

Based on the FAQ which I have admittedly not read closely, there still seems to be confusion because the FAQ doesn't define what it means by "new" middle school. Do they mean "new" as in not built or opened yet (MacFarland, Ward 4, etc.) or "new" as in this year we are assigned to one middle school (Deal) but next year we're assigned to another (Hardy). Very confusing and people will embrace the interpretation that works best for them.