Anonymous wrote:Apparently #6 is dead on arrival as announced by DCPS at this May 16 meeting ... for reasons not clearly defined ... without any prior notice ... after claiming as recently as May3 that all options are on the table ... even though it sounds like lots of people support something like that.

Sounds to me like one person vetoed it. Such bullshit.

Anonymous wrote:#3 is really hard to do just in one part of the city. And once you get east of 16th street and Capitol Hill -- there aren't great pairing options available.

Anonymous wrote:Apparently #6 is dead on arrival as announced by DCPS at this May 16 meeting ... for reasons not clearly defined ... without any prior notice ... after claiming as recently as May3 that all options are on the table ... even though it sounds like lots of people support something like that.

Sounds to me like one person vetoed it. Such bullshit.

Anonymous wrote:Here are a few ideas. I'll describe the pro and con list for each. None of them are perfect, several will piss people off. Forgive the blunt descriptions; I'm not good at sugarcoated euphemisms.

1. Keep adding more capacity. This seems to be where DCPS is headed. It seems like a dead end. Also, how can the city justify the cost of building even more schools in NW when half the students are coming from other parts of the city, especially when the city has other schools sitting half empty? It's the easiest option to sell because it spreads the cost widest, but it's a cop out IMHO.

2. Create a few new test-in schools like SWW and Banneker, which seem to be very successful. The test-in aspect means that only serious students will be at the schools, so parents who want serious academics and don't care so much about all the extra stuff like band and art will be willing to pull their children out of Deal and Wilson in favor of the test-in schools. That will reduce overcrowding at Deal-Wilson. One potential problem is that the test-in schools may end up being largely white and Asian, with less diversity. Some people will complain that the city shouldn't fund programs that benefit white and Asian students. But the positive flip-side is that as white and Asian students get peeled away from Deal and Wilson, that will make Deal and Wilson even more diverse. Also, maybe DCPS could co-locate these test-in schools in other existing schools that have large black and Hispanic populations, which would mean the co-located school as a whole would become more diverse. Also, the test-in program's PARCC scores would help boost the school's overall rating, which might attract more people from the surrounding neighborhood to the school. For example, maybe a test-in program gets co-located at the Takoma Education Campus. Maybe at MacFarland or Brightwood EC?

3. Sister schools a/k/a choice set a/k/a lottery overflow (I don't have a catchy name for this one yet). This is sort of like the options others seem to be offering for how to create better student balance between Deal (overcapacity) and Hardy (undercapacity). Link Deal and Hardy as sister schools, with one catching the lottery overflow from the other. In other words, if Deal has a hard-cap capacity of 1350 (or whatever it currently is), and there are more feeder students than that capacity, then the excess (as determined by lottery) get in-bounds preference for Hardy. That way, Deal will never be overcapacity, but those squeezed out of Deal will have full rights at Hardy. That same sister-school model could be applied to pair up over/under-capacity elementary schools. For example, an obvious pairing might be Lafayette ES (overcapacity?) and Shepherd ES (undercapacity). If an IB student for Lafayette doesn't get a spot there, then she gets automatic IB rights to Shepherd. Another pairing might be Hearst (undercapacity) with Janney (overcapacity). You could even expand the sister-school concept to a multi-school choice set that includes all the schools in the feeder pattern. In other words, for example, if Janney is overcapacity, any IB students who miss spots at Janney will have full IB rights at all of the other schools in the Deal feeder pattern. This model helps prevent the popular NWDC schools (or really any school) from getting overcapacity because of the hard-cap on enrollment, but gives students who miss out in the lottery a decent nearby second choice. This doesn't do much in the short term for Wilson though because there's not another nearby option for high school. But in the long term, it helps ensure that all the feeder capacity to Wilson is fully utilized by students IB to its many feeders, which helps limit the number of students at Wilson. (I'm not sure, but this might be nearly identical to the "choice sets" option DCPS planners suggested when we did the boundary squabble a few years ago. If so, maybe it will be attractive to them since they can claim it was their own bright idea in the first place.)

4. Close elementary schools without substantial IB enrollment. People will hate, hate, hate this idea, and I'm not sure yet if the math works. But try to keep an open mind so we can get all ideas on the table. If one of the feeder elementary schools is not substantially IB, then close it. Merge that school's neighborhood into another nearby ES. As one example, Shepherd ES is only 35% IB. So close Shepherd ES and send all its IB students to Lafayette. The boundary will remain the same, the feeder pattern will remain the same, Shepherd Park residents will retain full access to Deal and Wilson. But if Shepherd Park families are not using the ES, and it's 65% OOB anyway, then let's close it. Give the school building to one of the charters that need space. Closing an ES like that may seem like it will create more overcrowding, so you'd have to make sure that the Shepherd Park neighborhood is combined with another ES that can handle the extra capacity. But by closing underutilized elementary schools, you'd reduce the feeder numbers going to Deal and Wilson. If the "political challenge" of closing a neighborhood school is too much for DCPS to handle, then maybe just re-purpose part of the school instead. For example, split Shepherd ES in half, and co-locate at Shepherd ES one of the middle school test-in programs described above in proposal #2. That way, instead of a 330 elementary student school that's only 35% IB, Shepherd becomes a 115-student ES that's 100% IB + a 115-student test-in magnet school. DCPS could even offer some sort of neighborhood preference for Shepherd Park residents for the middle-school test-in program, to sweeten the pot. This is sort of like how the Takoma Park MS magnet program works.

5. Do nothing. Perhaps I'm just frustrated by the discussion of the past several years, but I'm wondering if DCPS's real plan (and maybe the best answer) is just to delay and do nothing. All the OOB students continuing to cram into Deal and Wilson don't care that it's overcrowded, because even overcrowded Wilson is apparently better than their neighborhood schools. The IB families may complain, but so what? The city's political power doesn't run through NWDC, and DCPS can easily justify ignoring the complaints of wealthy white residents of NWDC to focus on promoting more "equity" for other neighborhoods. As the overcrowding gets worse, wealthy NWDC families can either opt for private schools or they can leave for the suburbs; there will always be more buyers willing to take their places. Eventually, if demographic trends continue, the EOTP neighborhoods will continue to gentrify and get wealthier and the schools around them might even improve on their own as the neighborhoods improve. That way, DCPS can just let the natural market handle itself and avoid any political challenges. The only cost is continuing to hold periodic meetings to let whiny NWDC residents vent their frustrations. Cynical, I know.

Not sure if any of these ideas will work, but perhaps they're fresh ones. This is DCUM, so probably people will just crap on them, but maybe they'll spark someone else to develop a better idea that actually works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

And to keep firing the teachers and pressurizing the principals using these metrics is futile, creates more problems long term due to instability!

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

You are missing a not so subtle point. The majority of public schools are not diverse. Most are 90% AA. And DCPS does not seem to be concerned with that. It's only with Wilson and Deal that they seem to want hold up as models of diversity. That was fine when there was space. But now it's driving Ward 3 parents crazy.

You are correct of course about many other schools being predominantly African-American. But there is little DCPS can do in the short run to diversify these schools. They have tried to bring diversity to some of those schools with limited success. So the demographics of those schools is not a reflection of what DCPS is concerned about or wants. With Deal and Wilson it's different because the city actually has choices.

With social engineering as a top priority, it's no wonder that DCPS falls short on actual education. Poverty and the burdens of having under-perfoming parents need to be addressed by social services long before kids get to school. Hosing segregation is a real estate, financing, and social issue.

Making a couple of schools 'look' diverse and pretending like that truly makes a meaningful difference to district outcomes is silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

You are missing a not so subtle point. The majority of public schools are not diverse. Most are 90% AA. And DCPS does not seem to be concerned with that. It's only with Wilson and Deal that they seem to want hold up as models of diversity. That was fine when there was space. But now it's driving Ward 3 parents crazy.

You are correct of course about many other schools being predominantly African-American. But there is little DCPS can do in the short run to diversify these schools. They have tried to bring diversity to some of those schools with limited success. So the demographics of those schools is not a reflection of what DCPS is concerned about or wants. With Deal and Wilson it's different because the city actually has choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

You are missing a not so subtle point. The majority of public schools are not diverse. Most are 90% AA. And DCPS does not seem to be concerned with that. It's only with Wilson and Deal that they seem to want hold up as models of diversity. That was fine when there was space. But now it's driving Ward 3 parents crazy.

You are correct of course about many other schools being predominantly African-American. But there is little DCPS can do in the short run to diversify these schools. They have tried to bring diversity to some of those schools with limited success. So the demographics of those schools is not a reflection of what DCPS is concerned about or wants. With Deal and Wilson it's different because the city actually has choices.

Anonymous wrote:Here are a few ideas. I'll describe the pro and con list for each. None of them are perfect, several will piss people off. Forgive the blunt descriptions; I'm not good at sugarcoated euphemisms.

1. Keep adding more capacity. This seems to be where DCPS is headed. It seems like a dead end. Also, how can the city justify the cost of building even more schools in NW when half the students are coming from other parts of the city, especially when the city has other schools sitting half empty? It's the easiest option to sell because it spreads the cost widest, but it's a cop out IMHO.

2. Create a few new test-in schools like SWW and Banneker, which seem to be very successful. The test-in aspect means that only serious students will be at the schools, so parents who want serious academics and don't care so much about all the extra stuff like band and art will be willing to pull their children out of Deal and Wilson in favor of the test-in schools. That will reduce overcrowding at Deal-Wilson. One potential problem is that the test-in schools may end up being largely white and Asian, with less diversity. Some people will complain that the city shouldn't fund programs that benefit white and Asian students. But the positive flip-side is that as white and Asian students get peeled away from Deal and Wilson, that will make Deal and Wilson even more diverse. Also, maybe DCPS could co-locate these test-in schools in other existing schools that have large black and Hispanic populations, which would mean the co-located school as a whole would become more diverse. Also, the test-in program's PARCC scores would help boost the school's overall rating, which might attract more people from the surrounding neighborhood to the school. For example, maybe a test-in program gets co-located at the Takoma Education Campus. Maybe at MacFarland or Brightwood EC?

3. Sister schools a/k/a choice set a/k/a lottery overflow (I don't have a catchy name for this one yet). This is sort of like the options others seem to be offering for how to create better student balance between Deal (overcapacity) and Hardy (undercapacity). Link Deal and Hardy as sister schools, with one catching the lottery overflow from the other. In other words, if Deal has a hard-cap capacity of 1350 (or whatever it currently is), and there are more feeder students than that capacity, then the excess (as determined by lottery) get in-bounds preference for Hardy. That way, Deal will never be overcapacity, but those squeezed out of Deal will have full rights at Hardy. That same sister-school model could be applied to pair up over/under-capacity elementary schools. For example, an obvious pairing might be Lafayette ES (overcapacity?) and Shepherd ES (undercapacity). If an IB student for Lafayette doesn't get a spot there, then she gets automatic IB rights to Shepherd. Another pairing might be Hearst (undercapacity) with Janney (overcapacity). You could even expand the sister-school concept to a multi-school choice set that includes all the schools in the feeder pattern. In other words, for example, if Janney is overcapacity, any IB students who miss spots at Janney will have full IB rights at all of the other schools in the Deal feeder pattern. This model helps prevent the popular NWDC schools (or really any school) from getting overcapacity because of the hard-cap on enrollment, but gives students who miss out in the lottery a decent nearby second choice. This doesn't do much in the short term for Wilson though because there's not another nearby option for high school. But in the long term, it helps ensure that all the feeder capacity to Wilson is fully utilized by students IB to its many feeders, which helps limit the number of students at Wilson. (I'm not sure, but this might be nearly identical to the "choice sets" option DCPS planners suggested when we did the boundary squabble a few years ago. If so, maybe it will be attractive to them since they can claim it was their own bright idea in the first place.)

4. Close elementary schools without substantial IB enrollment. People will hate, hate, hate this idea, and I'm not sure yet if the math works. But try to keep an open mind so we can get all ideas on the table. If one of the feeder elementary schools is not substantially IB, then close it. Merge that school's neighborhood into another nearby ES. As one example, Shepherd ES is only 35% IB. So close Shepherd ES and send all its IB students to Lafayette. The boundary will remain the same, the feeder pattern will remain the same, Shepherd Park residents will retain full access to Deal and Wilson. But if Shepherd Park families are not using the ES, and it's 65% OOB anyway, then let's close it. Give the school building to one of the charters that need space. Closing an ES like that may seem like it will create more overcrowding, so you'd have to make sure that the Shepherd Park neighborhood is combined with another ES that can handle the extra capacity. But by closing underutilized elementary schools, you'd reduce the feeder numbers going to Deal and Wilson. If the "political challenge" of closing a neighborhood school is too much for DCPS to handle, then maybe just re-purpose part of the school instead. For example, split Shepherd ES in half, and co-locate at Shepherd ES one of the middle school test-in programs described above in proposal #2. That way, instead of a 330 elementary student school that's only 35% IB, Shepherd becomes a 115-student ES that's 100% IB + a 115-student test-in magnet school. DCPS could even offer some sort of neighborhood preference for Shepherd Park residents for the middle-school test-in program, to sweeten the pot. This is sort of like how the Takoma Park MS magnet program works.

5. Do nothing. Perhaps I'm just frustrated by the discussion of the past several years, but I'm wondering if DCPS's real plan (and maybe the best answer) is just to delay and do nothing. All the OOB students continuing to cram into Deal and Wilson don't care that it's overcrowded, because even overcrowded Wilson is apparently better than their neighborhood schools. The IB families may complain, but so what? The city's political power doesn't run through NWDC, and DCPS can easily justify ignoring the complaints of wealthy white residents of NWDC to focus on promoting more "equity" for other neighborhoods. As the overcrowding gets worse, wealthy NWDC families can either opt for private schools or they can leave for the suburbs; there will always be more buyers willing to take their places. Eventually, if demographic trends continue, the EOTP neighborhoods will continue to gentrify and get wealthier and the schools around them might even improve on their own as the neighborhoods improve. That way, DCPS can just let the natural market handle itself and avoid any political challenges. The only cost is continuing to hold periodic meetings to let whiny NWDC residents vent their frustrations. Cynical, I know.

Not sure if any of these ideas will work, but perhaps they're fresh ones. This is DCUM, so probably people will just crap on them, but maybe they'll spark someone else to develop a better idea that actually works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

You are missing a not so subtle point. The majority of public schools are not diverse. Most are 90% AA. And DCPS does not seem to be concerned with that. It's only with Wilson and Deal that they seem to want hold up as models of diversity. That was fine when there was space. But now it's driving Ward 3 parents crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.