Bancroft parent wrote:I really wonder where a lot of these posters live, who are talking about "over-crowding" and offering purportedly well-meaning proposals of new MSs and HSs for those of us living in wards other than 3. I suspect many live in Ward 3, and thus would never be required to attend these brave new schools that they are proposing. But I can't know, because they don't disclose it.

Anonymous wrote:

I really wonder where a lot of these posters live, who are talking about "over-crowding" and offering purportedly well-meaning proposals of new MSs and HSs for those of us living in wards other than 3. I suspect many live in Ward 3, and thus would never be required to attend these brave new schools that they are proposing. But I can't know, because they don't disclose it.

I live in Ward 4 and also posted 18:47 above.

My bias is that I don't want to send my kid to Deal or Wilson, but that means we need better options EOTP.

And there is urgency in figuring this out because it takes time to change or create a school that will be an attractive alternative to Ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:

The idea of adding a Ward 2 or 3 high school is at least an attempt to increase the size of the pie. My issue with it is that it may not be the optimal method of achieving that goal. My preference is to look at expanding EotP opportunities. I can foresee a day when high-performing, ethnically and socio-economicly diverse EotP schools are considered preferable to homogeneous WotP schools. That day is not tomorrow and certainly communities cannot be abandoned during the transition, but the day may not be that far off either.

I agree with increasing the size of the pie, but a Ward 2 or 3 high school is not optimal because it would still be drawing students from EOTP. One could say it would have to draw from EOTP because there aren't enough school aged kids in Ward 2 and the southern portion of Ward 3 choosing DCPS over private (isn't this the reason Hardy is mostly OOB?).

So then we're back to the same problem of EOTP students going to WOTP schools and leaving their own neighborhood schools struggling. Why would we recreate the problem we're dealing with now??

I really wonder where a lot of these posters live, who are talking about "over-crowding" and offering purportedly well-meaning proposals of new MSs and HSs for those of us living in wards other than 3. I suspect many live in Ward 3, and thus would never be required to attend these brave new schools that they are proposing. But I can't know, because they don't disclose it.

The idea of adding a Ward 2 or 3 high school is at least an attempt to increase the size of the pie. My issue with it is that it may not be the optimal method of achieving that goal. My preference is to look at expanding EotP opportunities. I can foresee a day when high-performing, ethnically and socio-economicly diverse EotP schools are considered preferable to homogeneous WotP schools. That day is not tomorrow and certainly communities cannot be abandoned during the transition, but the day may not be that far off either.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But in the meantime, we want to go to Deal and, more important than our own family's preferences, there are broader moral, political and legal issues with which to contend, which I explained above.

I am surprised at how often "broader moral, political and legal issues" coincide with our own family's preferences. An amazing number of DCUM posters are strongly committed to a host of ethical principles which -- purely coincidentally, mind you -- support their personal preferences. I'm not claiming to be completely innocent of this myself and I'll concede that opposing red lining is an easier sell than touting the purchase of expensive real estate as a justification. But, regardless of the justice of your cause, this is simply one more fight over pieces of the same pie.

The idea of adding a Ward 2 or 3 high school is at least an attempt to increase the size of the pie. My issue with it is that it may not be the optimal method of achieving that goal. My preference is to look at expanding EotP opportunities. I can foresee a day when high-performing, ethnically and socio-economicly diverse EotP schools are considered preferable to homogeneous WotP schools. That day is not tomorrow and certainly communities cannot be abandoned during the transition, but the day may not be that far off either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, we've got competing interests here: on one hand, the non-white Deal parents are concerned that redistricting will make Deal a "lilly white" school; whereas a different set of (non-racially aligned) parents want to make sure that Deal, and Wilson, are relieved of overcrowding. How do you reconcile these two interests?

Well, you have to be careful not to change the Deal and Wilson boundaries to cut out the most non-white areas currently within the boundaries. Therefore, you cannot cut east-west but you can cut north-south. So, where do those cut out to the south send their kids to High School, since they can't go to Deal, and Hardy will be cut out from feeding into Wilson?

The result is you need a new High School for those in Ward 3 and Ward 2 cut out from Wilson. Clearly, you can't do anything to Ellington, because that would be racist, too, from the perspective of non-white families. So, you've got to create a new High School somewhere near Ellington; or else bus those Ward 2 and 3 kids somewhere east out of their neighborhoods. All because of race, from one perspective or another.

Somehow, imo, we've got to overcome race as a barrier, and instead focus on practical solutions to Wilson and Deal overcrowding.

Except cutting north-south potentially cuts out Hardy, the most non-white Wilson feeder. So that should be off-limits.

Anonymous wrote:So, we've got competing interests here: on one hand, the non-white Deal parents are concerned that redistricting will make Deal a "lilly white" school; whereas a different set of (non-racially aligned) parents want to make sure that Deal, and Wilson, are relieved of overcrowding. How do you reconcile these two interests?

Well, you have to be careful not to change the Deal and Wilson boundaries to cut out the most non-white areas currently within the boundaries. Therefore, you cannot cut east-west but you can cut north-south. So, where do those cut out to the south send their kids to High School, since they can't go to Deal, and Hardy will be cut out from feeding into Wilson?

The result is you need a new High School for those in Ward 3 and Ward 2 cut out from Wilson. Clearly, you can't do anything to Ellington, because that would be racist, too, from the perspective of non-white families. So, you've got to create a new High School somewhere near Ellington; or else bus those Ward 2 and 3 kids somewhere east out of their neighborhoods. All because of race, from one perspective or another.

Somehow, imo, we've got to overcome race as a barrier, and instead focus on practical solutions to Wilson and Deal overcrowding.

Anonymous wrote:
But in the meantime, we want to go to Deal and, more important than our own family's preferences, there are broader moral, political and legal issues with which to contend, which I explained above.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.)

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bancroft parent, why are you opposed to sending your child to an EotP middle school? What's wrong with the EotP schools?

I am not sure if this is a serious question or just trying to be pedantic, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Like most parents I care less about "EOTP/WOTP" and more about quality.

To understand why we want to attend Deal, compare Deal to other MSs with regard to:

- academic programming
- test scores
- Great Schools rating, if that's your thing
- levels of preparedness among students when they arrive
- credentials at graduation/readiness for HS
- sports and other extra-curriculars
- history of stable and consistent quality
- parental commitment and involvement
- general atmosphere, those intangibles like how much people love their school
- etc

Plus, Deal is a quick, easy drive from our house, and the public transport options are ok too.

Do you really have to ask? There is a reason everyone is fighting to maintain or obtain access to Deal - it is widely regarded as the best DCPS MS in the city.

Could something like Deal be built elsewhere? Maybe, given enough years. And I fully support proposals that ADD OPTIONS as opposed to SUBTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES. So for example, the oft-discussed application-only bilingual MS is a great idea. Locate it EOTP and in time it could start to draw families, of their own free will, who otherwise would go to Deal. I think in our case we'd still choose Deal but I imagine some families will be intrigued by that option and it could relieve some pressure on Deal/Wilson. Maybe even (gasp) some WOTP parents would want to give it a try.

But in the meantime, we want to go to Deal and, more important than our own family's preferences, there are broader moral, political and legal issues with which to contend, which I explained above.

Anonymous wrote:Bancroft parent, why are you opposed to sending your child to an EotP middle school? What's wrong with the EotP schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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@CHEC

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?