Agree with above. (And with the poster asking the Lafayette parent if they'd be okay with an OOB kid making them have to send their kid to another school east of the park. Damn right: that's the key issue.)

The point above is all the more sound if you take a more holistic view of diversity to "black/white". The NW schools are quite international. That diversity counts for something too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I, quite frankly, lay this issue at the feet of DCPS. For years, they used OOB as an escape valve for pent up demand for high quality education in other neighborhoods. Rather than doing the hard work of creating quality schools throughout the district, they sat back and let motivated parents cluster into just a few schools. To me, it is absolutely crazy that high-SES neighborhoods such as 16th Street Heights and Crestwood don't have their own high quality options. Why is Shepherd only 28% in bounds? It's a great little school in a great neighborhood. It's an embarrassment that AA and other minority students still have to travel to predominantly white neighborhoods for a quality education.

Totally with you. Better options are likely highly achievable just east of the Park in neighborhoods from Dupont up to Shepherd Park. But DCPS has not done things to capture those neighborhood families in the schools that are in those areas, and the entire system has suffered for it. Absolutely.

And what's more, if those schools improved, more people would want to stay in DC and settle in those areas, spreading out much of the real esate value across the City. DC and DCPS had an opportunity, and they still do, as the system grows.

Another +1. The decision cited earlier noted that Deal and Wilson were the only upper schools in DC with the possibility of being integrated. That's just not true anymore. Cardozo feeds from fully integrated and diverse neighborhoods. It could easily be integrated in 10 years but it never will be at this rate because its terrible. Same with the Hill schools. This city is the most integrated and diverse than its been in 60 years and the schools are not keeping up.

Anonymous wrote:It ain't 1967 any more and this type of consent decree would not survive judicial review in today's increasingly anti-affirmative action environment, particularly in the context of a citywide boundary revision. In effect, a federal judge would have to invalidate the neighborhood preference, which is not going to happen. Too many of these federal trial and appellate judges live in the NW neighborhood that would be affected.

In this instance, neighborhood schools and diversity are competing social goods. There are valid reasons for wanting both. Given that the schools in question are overcrowded, a case for redistricting based on geographic proximity to the school can definitely be substantiated, particularly given the increased diversity found in other regions of the district.

If DCPS wants to encourage higher SES and well-educated families (of all races) to consider EoftheP schools, then not only do they have to create G&T test-in/magnet options to ensure that the advanced kid will not be dragged down, but they also have to figure out how to get tough on the behavior/cultural issues that frighten higher SES families away. That means being a lot quicker to expel problem kids and/or create specialized KIPP-like models to redirect the behaviorally challenged kids into. No matter the quality of the magnet program, parents (both white and AA) are not going to send their kid to [Eastern/Coolidge/CHEC/Roosevelt/etc.] if they are afraid of their kid getting "jumped" in the hallway.

Following up on 11:19--if DCPS wanted to capture the higher SES families up 16th from Dupont to Colonial Villlage---then it should focus on CHEC/Bell or McFarland/Roosevelt and then feed Oyster Adams/Ross/Garrison/Bancroft/Shepard Park/West/Powell into it. (I'm probably forgetting an ES but you get the general idea).

It ain't 1967 any more and this type of consent decree would not survive judicial review in today's increasingly anti-affirmative action environment, particularly in the context of a citywide boundary revision. In effect, a federal judge would have to invalidate the neighborhood preference, which is not going to happen. Too many of these federal trial and appellate judges live in the NW neighborhood that would be affected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I, quite frankly, lay this issue at the feet of DCPS. For years, they used OOB as an escape valve for pent up demand for high quality education in other neighborhoods. Rather than doing the hard work of creating quality schools throughout the district, they sat back and let motivated parents cluster into just a few schools. To me, it is absolutely crazy that high-SES neighborhoods such as 16th Street Heights and Crestwood don't have their own high quality options. Why is Shepherd only 28% in bounds? It's a great little school in a great neighborhood. It's an embarrassment that AA and other minority students still have to travel to predominantly white neighborhoods for a quality education.

Totally with you. Better options are likely highly achievable just east of the Park in neighborhoods from Dupont up to Shepherd Park. But DCPS has not done things to capture those neighborhood families in the schools that are in those areas, and the entire system has suffered for it. Absolutely.

And what's more, if those schools improved, more people would want to stay in DC and settle in those areas, spreading out much of the real esate value across the City. DC and DCPS had an opportunity, and they still do, as the system grows.

another +1

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you 100% PP. My kids attended Lafayette and are now at Deal but I really wish the Lafayette community would have staked some guidelines like this and ensured that the school population would always be at least 25% OOB. I know it's pollyana-ish but so many white families talk about wanting diversity, I just with they would put their money where their mouth is. I didn't have the courage to call them on it.

(FWIW we are an IB AA family)

so you would be OK with having your kid kicked out of Lafayette to make space to an OOB kid living in Brookland or Mount Pleasant (given the physical space in the school and the current number of kids at Lafayette, 20% OOB means some IB would have to go elsewhere). or just the white families need to put their money where their mouth is.

Money, in a word. I guess we can get into a debate about whether upper and upper-middle class students tend to be better prepared for school, but for the sake of argument let's just assume that that point is settled. So the question is how do we, as a city, use these upper and upper-middle class students to our advantage in improving educational opportunities for everyone. I think the answer is innovating schools that will entice these students to spread out (and maybe even entice some of the families using private schools to come back to public schools). The answer is NOT carving out space for 10 or 20 or even 100 OOB students to attend the one coveted middle school. Where does that leave the rest of the OOB population?

I understand what you are saying, and agree with it, for the most part. But the bolded sentence makes me cringe (even though I generally agree with it). My kid is not a tool to be used for social change. She's a 7 yo who deserves the best public education possible (as do all 7 yos, and all kids). And I'm fortunate to be able to provide her (within reason) with those opportunities. I wish all kids had the same opportunities, but I'm not willing to sacrifice her on the alter of social engineering so DCPS can "improve." Call me selfish, but that's how I view my responsibility as a parent. I'm not talking about being in a lily-white, rich school - she goes to a charter now, and the diversity there, both racial and SES, whould make many JKLMM parents run for the hills. But the minute I feel like she's being disadvantaged to further some political agenda is the minute I start screaming bloody murder, and either move to the 'burbs <shudder> or start applying to privates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is going to start forcing busing of Ward 3 kids to eastern, then there is no legal way to enforce divserity at Wilson.

Yep. If Wilson parents say they value diversity, I'd say, send them to my kid's school. What they value is not feeling guilty that they live in a segregated white enclave.

I don't think Wilson parents have any problem with diversity considering the school is 22% white, 47% AA, 19% Latino and 8% Asian. That's real diversity. I'd wager that your school doesn't match those statistic.

Anonymous wrote:I, quite frankly, lay this issue at the feet of DCPS. For years, they used OOB as an escape valve for pent up demand for high quality education in other neighborhoods. Rather than doing the hard work of creating quality schools throughout the district, they sat back and let motivated parents cluster into just a few schools. To me, it is absolutely crazy that high-SES neighborhoods such as 16th Street Heights and Crestwood don't have their own high quality options. Why is Shepherd only 28% in bounds? It's a great little school in a great neighborhood. It's an embarrassment that AA and other minority students still have to travel to predominantly white neighborhoods for a quality education.

Totally with you. Better options are likely highly achievable just east of the Park in neighborhoods from Dupont up to Shepherd Park. But DCPS has not done things to capture those neighborhood families in the schools that are in those areas, and the entire system has suffered for it. Absolutely.

And what's more, if those schools improved, more people would want to stay in DC and settle in those areas, spreading out much of the real esate value across the City. DC and DCPS had an opportunity, and they still do, as the system grows.

I, quite frankly, lay this issue at the feet of DCPS. For years, they used OOB as an escape valve for pent up demand for high quality education in other neighborhoods. Rather than doing the hard work of creating quality schools throughout the district, they sat back and let motivated parents cluster into just a few schools. To me, it is absolutely crazy that high-SES neighborhoods such as 16th Street Heights and Crestwood don't have their own high quality options. Why is Shepherd only 28% in bounds? It's a great little school in a great neighborhood. It's an embarrassment that AA and other minority students still have to travel to predominantly white neighborhoods for a quality education.

Anonymous wrote:DC is going to start forcing busing of Ward 3 kids to eastern, then there is no legal way to enforce divserity at Wilson.

Yep. If Wilson parents say they value diversity, I'd say, send them to my kid's school. What they value is not feeling guilty that they live in a segregated white enclave.

Ward 3 will fight any affordable or public housing faster and harder than they will fight boundary changes. There is one housing authority site in all of upper NW and its for Seniors (cause you know, those are the less threatening poor folks). They fight affordablity in many ways including fighting any building where the height would trigger mandatory inclusionary zoning. They fought apts on top of the new Tenley library cause they new it would bring lower income kids and crowd their prcious Janney. There is zero political will to push for an equitable distribution of public housing. And yes, the boundary changes will survive a legal battle. The vast majority of schools in the country are de facto segragated due to living patterns. So unless DC is going to start forcing busing of Ward 3 kids to eastern, then there is no legal way to enforce divserity at Wilson.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absurd that anyone's seriously suggesting reserving space for OOB kids as way of ensuring diversity. Everyone knows that what makes Deal a good school is the students at Deal -- i.e., the in bound students. Instead of trying to find ways to get more OOB kids into Deal, how about enticing some Deal students to go to other schools around the city?

What exactly makes the in bound students the reason Deal is a good school?

Money, in a word. I guess we can get into a debate about whether upper and upper-middle class students tend to be better prepared for school, but for the sake of argument let's just assume that that point is settled. So the question is how do we, as a city, use these upper and upper-middle class students to our advantage in improving educational opportunities for everyone. I think the answer is innovating schools that will entice these students to spread out (and maybe even entice some of the families using private schools to come back to public schools). The answer is NOT carving out space for 10 or 20 or even 100 OOB students to attend the one coveted middle school. Where does that leave the rest of the OOB population?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal and Wilson are located in the core of residentially segregated upper northwest. I am tired of the idea that the rest of the City is here to benefit Deal and Wilson by providing local children with a multiracial, multiclass learning experience. We offer them diversity?

And I like it even less when people from schools with more diverse populations or from other areas of the City cite Deal and Wilson's interest in diversity to allow their family, their school to feed to them.

Arguments like "Hearst is full of out boundary black students so it has to be allowed to feed to Deal to provide them diversity.". Or Eaton or Shepherd or Ward 6 to Wilson for that matter.

Upper northwest residents and those who just want to go to school there jump on this when diversity is icing for the cake for Upper Northwest and losing these students into this single feeder pattern is a detriment to the rest of the City.

You can be as tired of the argument as you like, but you had better get used to it. It is a simple fact that boundaries that have the effect of eliminating minorities from Deal or Wilson will result in an instant lawsuit -- and a very winnable one at that.

The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

First, the argument that policies meant to keep schools integrated are aimed at redressing the effects of segregation from the 1950s and 1960s is no longer credible. Until recently, DC had been majority AA for decades. Every mayor of DC has been AA since Lyndon Johnson appointed Walter Washington in 1967. The majority AA population has controlled the political agenda of the DC government for decades. The Supreme Court will recognize gerrymandering of the Deal and Wilson boundaries for what it is -- an attempt to dampen the impact of gentrification and the increasing non-AA population.

Second, integration, in and of itself, is not a compelling state interest that would support racially-motivated gerrymandering of the Deal and Wilson boundaries. From Wikipedia concerning the PICS decision:

Part III B[9] (joined only by a plurality of the Court) rejected the notion that racial balancing could be a compelling state interest, as to do so "would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to our repeated recognition that "[a]t the heart of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class."[20] Allowing racial balancing as a compelling end in itself would "effectively assur[e] that race will always be relevant in American life, and that the 'ultimate goal' of 'eliminating entirely from governmental decisionmaking such irrelevant factors as a human being's race' will never be achieved." [21] An interest "linked to nothing other than proportional representation of various races . . . would support indefinite use of racial classifications, employed first to obtain the appropriate mixture of racial views and then to ensure that the [program] continues to reflect that mixture."[22]

The Equal Protection clause of the constitution cuts both ways. Unless the Deal and Wilson boundaries are drawn using a compass, they should be scrutinized and potentially litigated for discriminatory intent.