Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As regards Deal and Wilson, it seems like the 18 months we went through with the whole DME process was a complete waste of time, because most of it got erased by Bowser at today's press conference. I wonder if she would at least show us all the work she supposedly did to assess these changes.

How do you figure? These really do seem like minor tweaks that don't undo anything. Just implement it better.

PS. I love how "tweaks" became the word of the day

The problem is this.

If a school is already overcrowded, then 10, 20, 40, 80 or 200 kids are all MORE than the school can handle.

It is a strategic move to use the word "Tweak" and pretend this is not a big deal. A total DC political machine joke.

Anonymous wrote:As regards Deal and Wilson, it seems like the 18 months we went through with the whole DME process was a complete waste of time, because most of it got erased by Bowser at today's press conference. I wonder if she would at least show us all the work she supposedly did to assess these changes.

How do you figure? These really do seem like minor tweaks that don't undo anything. Just implement it better.

PS. I love how "tweaks" became the word of the day

As regards Deal and Wilson, it seems like the 18 months we went through with the whole DME process was a complete waste of time, because most of it got erased by Bowser at today's press conference. I wonder if she would at least show us all the work she supposedly did to assess these changes.

Anonymous wrote:
It was not only considered, it was done. Eaton was removed from Deal, and maintained only the Hardy assignment.

As it turns out, Eaton and Oyster are the only ones to lose access to Deal, right? And, a few of the Eaton OOB families will now have a geographic right to Deal. I can imagine that some of the inbound Eaton families are steaming (though I think they should give Hardy a chance).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... 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.

Just on the Hardy point, it's got a very low IB percentage, so there is plenty of room at Hardy if the city wanted to expand its attendance zone and/or add another feeder.

Fine by me. Why do you think that wasn't considered as a means to control Deal's overenrollment? It would save the Mayor's office from getting deluged with angry calls from Jeff and other Crestwood residents. I suppose she'd be getting lots of angry calls from the people who got moved from Deal to Hardy, but they're a lot less sympathetic, given how Hardy stacks up against MacFarland. Maybe that's a change to consider in the next round of bickering (in 2022!). I'm guessing there is some other logistical problem we're not seeing right now. Any ideas?

It was not only considered, it was done. Eaton was removed from Deal, and maintained only the Hardy assignment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary participation rates (% public school students [PK3-5th] living in boundary and attending) (SY13-14)

Powell = 27%
West = 22%

What boundary participation rate can we expect for MacFarland in 2017?

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Powell%20ES.pdf
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/West%20EC.pdf

Those numbers don't seem right.
West is 39%
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/west+education+campus

Powell is 54%
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/powell+Elementary+School

But what's your point? Some of our best parents are OOB and come from across the city.

I believe your in-boundary numbers reflect the percentage of total students at the school who live in-boundary. The boundary participation numbers I posted reflect the percentage of students who live in-boundary and choose to attend the school (as opposed to seeking out some other school). The boundary participation rates for Powell and West suggest that those schools are attracting some neighborhood families, and have lots of room to attract more.

In other neighborhoods, where both the elementary and the middle school are strong, the boundary participation rates are high at both levels, because lots of kids move from the DCPS elementary to the DCPS middle school: Lafayette 91%, Deal 83%. In other neighborhoods where the elementary is strong, but people are less excited about the middle school, you can see a dropoff from elementary to middle: Key 88%, Hardy 32%.

When MacFarland opens in 2017, and lots of families have a choice between Macfarland and Deal, I'm wondering how many will choose MacFarland. Will the boundary participation rate be at least in the 25% range we see for Powell and West? Or will it drop lower because lots of families will choose Deal or some other school?

Anonymous wrote:Boundary participation rates (% public school students [PK3-5th] living in boundary and attending) (SY13-14)

Powell = 27%
West = 22%

What boundary participation rate can we expect for MacFarland in 2017?

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Powell%20ES.pdf
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/West%20EC.pdf

Those numbers don't seem right.
West is 39%
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/west+education+campus

Powell is 54%
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/powell+Elementary+School

But what's your point? Some of our best parents are OOB and come from across the city.

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of us in Ward 2 have been cut out of Wilson starting next year. I'm surprised there is not more of an uproar.

I'm in ward 1 and was cut out too.

Plenty of us in Ward 2 have been cut out of Wilson starting next year. I'm surprised there is not more of an uproar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:BTW, the fact that there was 100% avoidance of Powell (and I believe West) among Crestwood residents for at least 15 years is pretty good empirical evidence of the neighborhood's ability to avoid schools that aren't liked.

Yes, they avoided those schools because they had an easy choice to simply drive across the park and attend other schools they like better. I don't see how dynamic changes if they continue to have the option. Maybe if Deal gets so terribly overcrowded that it starts to sink in quality, then perhaps people will consider other options. But in the meantime, I don't see how many families are going to choose MacFarland, even after a shiny renovation. I'm all for the renovation, and for the wooing you suggest. But once the renovated school is complete, I'd eliminate the Deal option. Otherwise, that fancy renovated school will sit half-empty.

Bowser sank MacFarland for a bunch of votes.

... And discriminated in favor of her constituency against other parts of the city (the SW large area which had also been cut out of Wilson).

I can only imagine what other distortive and discriminatory favors she's planning to do in favor of those who supported her campaign, think about the lobbyists of the building/construction firms...

+1

Boundary participation rates (% public school students [PK3-5th] living in boundary and attending) (SY13-14)

Powell = 27%
West = 22%

What boundary participation rate can we expect for MacFarland in 2017?

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Powell%20ES.pdf
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/West%20EC.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm one of the posters that is interested in seeing MacFarland succeed for my kids, and I think Bowser did exactly the right thing for MacFarland. Especially by putting a date on paper. I'm still cautiously not-quite-optimistic about DCPS having the ability to pull off the rest, but this is a good start.

I am afraid you are wrong. Past experience suggest that it is much easier to embrace a new school with a new and enhanced programming and curriculum than recover a school which had been abandoned by higher SES IB families (who will be attending Deal in the case of MacFarland).

See the experience of Basis on the one hand, and of Hardy on the other: Basis took off immediately as a new school; Hardy is still deserted by most of the IB community due to the bad "ghetto" reputation it gained in years before 2012 (when the new highly effective Principal was appointed) , and despite the evidence of a new advanced programming, stellar Principal and teachers and honors rolls. By 2022, MacFarland will be half-empty, populated by low SES IB students and OBs from more disadvantaged wards, seeking for a safer neighborhood. No high SES family will consider sending their kids there.

I think there's something magical about "new charter school" that people tend to flock to. I don't know if the same applies to "new DCPS school". I'm watching the new Brookland Middle School closely to see how their roll out goes. I think we have a better shot over here due to the relative successes of our feeder elementary schools.

I think we have an opportunity to work with DME Niles, Chancellor Henderson, Mayor Bowser, CM Grosso and others to make the school at MacFarland a good middle school.

The grandfathering set out here allows folks breathing room to want to engage. It's absolutely right, as many want to say, that we have a system of choice. Until a school is full at a given grade, parents basically get to choose that school, and people have absolutely made their choices to this point.

What changes that? You work to make a school a good choice.

I really believe that DME Niles, having brought EL Haynes to where it is, can tell when the mix is right to draw people or not to a school. We won't just accept the ordinary. Mayor Bowser is looking for achievements and ones at home. Chancellor Henderson wants success, though I hope DCPS has the capacity and fervor to tackle this school with the same spirit as a band of charter founders. Many new schools have succeeded in DC. DCPS is rolling out Brookland MS, and it's great to have lessons learned from that.

There are some points of engagement. The FAQ says that MacFarland is expected to open school year 2017 or 2018 depending on modernizations. That's a powerful though brief statement. It's budget season and we're expecting to have the Mayor drop something for our new Education Committee chairman. Get ready to get in there on funding, design, content, leadership.

It was stated today that the plans aren't changing otherwise. The Implementation Plans said that " By April 2015, DCPS and the Mayor’s Office will propose a schedule for the sequence of middle school openings along with relevant costs and other considerations. " Further that "To ensure a successful opening of MacFarland MS, DCPS will partner with the school community to focus on outreach and recruitment. Another important focus of this group will be to help
families transition from the education campus model to a standalone MS."

Our leaders want to succeed and partner with us and have made promises about this school. I think it will be a lot of work for a lot of people, and I've wished we were further along toward making this happen than we are now. So hopefully lots of us will get in there and help and fears about foreclosed choices won't hold us back.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See the experience of Basis on the one hand, and of Hardy on the other: Basis took off immediately as a new school; Hardy is still deserted by most of the IB community due to the bad "ghetto" reputation it gained in years before 2012 (when the new highly effective Principal was appointed) , and despite the evidence of a new advanced programming, stellar Principal and teachers and honors rolls. By 2022, MacFarland will be half-empty, populated by low SES IB students and OBs from more disadvantaged wards, seeking for a safer neighborhood. No high SES family will consider sending their kids there.

Because MacFarland is now closed and will be re-opening as a much different school, I think it has more in common with Basis (or another charter) than Hardy. Though, a school the quality of Hardy would be very welcome in this case. The areas that will feed MacFarland have increasing SES levels and parents who are veterans of school turnarounds. Hardy seems to be plagued by a band of professional nay-sayers. The most-likely MacFarland equivalent of that group just got grandfathered to Deal. So, community support is likely to be very strong for MacFarland.

I agree. If the new MacFarland is similar to Hardy, I'd send my kids there rather than Deal. I've read too much whining on this board about Hardy, and don't see those factors as negatives.

My kids wear uniforms now, and I couldn't care less - actually kind of like it. And I'm happy to embrace OOB parents because they're an awesome part of our school.

Anonymous wrote:
See the experience of Basis on the one hand, and of Hardy on the other: Basis took off immediately as a new school; Hardy is still deserted by most of the IB community due to the bad "ghetto" reputation it gained in years before 2012 (when the new highly effective Principal was appointed) , and despite the evidence of a new advanced programming, stellar Principal and teachers and honors rolls. By 2022, MacFarland will be half-empty, populated by low SES IB students and OBs from more disadvantaged wards, seeking for a safer neighborhood. No high SES family will consider sending their kids there.

Because MacFarland is now closed and will be re-opening as a much different school, I think it has more in common with Basis (or another charter) than Hardy. Though, a school the quality of Hardy would be very welcome in this case. The areas that will feed MacFarland have increasing SES levels and parents who are veterans of school turnarounds. Hardy seems to be plagued by a band of professional nay-sayers. The most-likely MacFarland equivalent of that group just got grandfathered to Deal. So, community support is likely to be very strong for MacFarland.