Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random other piece of information about CHEC. When they started the dual immersion program in the MS they did not really care about the feeder pattern because their goal was to start kids in dual immersion as 6th graders. Admin "bragged" that they could make dual immersion work starting in MS even though almost all of the other programs they could find across the country started earlier.

I wonder how successful they are with that approach? I"m almost certain kids aren't attending who didn't have any prior Spanish instruction. Maybe the goal was to make it an "Hispanic" only middle school considering the demographics of the neighborhood.

Here's an insider's take on CHEC (filtered through me). The place is a mess. The principal is well-liked by the teachers, but the Vice Principal is hated, despised, loathed. Teachers cannot understand why the Principal doesn't see this. Is it good cop, bad cop?

Regardless, the school BLEEDS staff. I believe that 25% of the teachers left within the first two weeks, and the attrition continues throughout the year.

DCPS is surely aware of the strains this staffing problem places upon the system. (Oddly, they've done nothing either.) My guess (this is my guess, not the still-present teacher I'm quoting) is that DCPS is waiting for the Principal (I can't spell her name off-hand) to retire and then they'll clean house. Any plans while she's still in charge will go nowhere since CHEC is her baby.

Anonymous wrote:The 16th Street Corridor should remain o the Deal boundary (thus making it Deal/Wilson) with Dual feeder rights to the new/unknown schools as they emerge.
This means 16th Street Heights AND Crestwood should be treated consistently and just like Mt Pleasant and Sheperd Park and Colonial Village be put back in the Deal boundary. To do any other way would is UNFAIR and UNJUST. Since Eaton, Woodley Park, Adams Morgan and SW DC all moved out of Deal/wilson there sure is room for the lwoest density neighborhoods 16th Street Heights and Crestwood.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Random other piece of information about CHEC. When they started the dual immersion program in the MS they did not really care about the feeder pattern because their goal was to start kids in dual immersion as 6th graders. Admin "bragged" that they could make dual immersion work starting in MS even though almost all of the other programs they could find across the country started earlier.

I wonder how successful they are with that approach? I"m almost certain kids aren't attending who didn't have any prior Spanish instruction. Maybe the goal was to make it an "Hispanic" only middle school considering the demographics of the neighborhood.

Random other piece of information about CHEC. When they started the dual immersion program in the MS they did not really care about the feeder pattern because their goal was to start kids in dual immersion as 6th graders. Admin "bragged" that they could make dual immersion work starting in MS even though almost all of the other programs they could find across the country started earlier.

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP to whom you're responding, but a Bancroft parent. I hope that Bancroft and Shepherd parents can make the effort to be polite and empathetic throughout these difficult policy discussions. We definitely need to be active and engaged on these issues, but we also need to seek to understand where other people are coming from, whether in person or (always more difficult) on an anonymous forum. The bottom line is that every neighborhood in DC deserves a good middle school and high school option.

That said, to the PP who wants persuasive arguments why Bancroft and Shepherd should continue as Deal feeders, those arguments have been provided in this thread and elsewhere over the last several months. It's up to you whether or not you want to engage with those arguments.

I'm the PP you quoted. I appreciate your more measured tone. Maybe we can have a meaningful exchange. I completely agree with everything in your first paragraph. As for your second paragraph, can you please summarize the arguments you consider persuasive? Here is what I've seen:

1. Shepard Park absolutely cannot lose access to Wilson because Shepard Park has had access via some feeder argument for the past few years.
2. Shepard Park absolutely cannot lose access to Wilson because Shepard Park is racially diverse.
3. Bancroft absolutely cannot lose access to Wilson because Wilson is a better high school than Bancroft would have otherwise.

I don't consider any of these arguments particularly persuasive. Many other neighborhoods could make the exact same arguments. Also, these arguments seem more focused on retaining benefits for the particular neighborhoods of the people making the argument, rather than on the interests of DCPS as a whole. But I'm sure there are other arguments I've missed. I'd appreciate you highlighting them for me.

Don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against the Shepard Park or Bancroft neighborhoods. I want them to have great schools. And (unfortunately) I'm not in any neighborhood that benefits from any of these boundary changes, so I've got no personal stake in the outcome. But I get frustrated when I see people (like some PPs) making strident demands, and hurling insults at anyone who dares to disagree, while failing to present any logical support for their positions. Maybe you can provide the logical support that some other PPs have omitted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I agree Shepard and Bancroft should feed elsewhere. They do look to have gained a gerrymander via some political deal.

The only reason I can see that makes any sense is that DME looked at the available Deal/Wilson seats, decided she could fit in a few more kids, and that Shep/Bancroft just had the political pull (or got lucky) to be the ones selected.

But if there really are more available seats at Deal/Wilson, I think it makes more sense to put them into the openly available lottery rather than reserve them for Shep/Bancroft.

Does DME describe any justification anywhere for giving this special favor to Shep/Bancroft?

^ Useless post by an ignorant fool. Shepherd and Bancroft have been Deal feeders for decades. Maybe try shutting up when you don't know what you're talking about?

I'm sorry you're unable to engage in civil and constructive discussion. How about the fact that Shepard Park was not zoned for Wilson previously? The only route to Wilson was thru some ridiculous feeder argument, which as I hear tell was created during the Rhee administration. So don't give me yap about decades of history. And as for Bancroft, it's way outside the Deal-Wilson neighborhood, and far closer to other schools.

It doesn't take much to look at the map and see that Shapard and Bancroft should be zoned for east of the park middle/high schools that are part of the neighborhoods for those elementary schools.

If you want to offer some persuasive argument why not, I'm happy to be persuaded. But so far, you've just demonstrated that you are an abrasive person. Please convince me with something more than just your ability to call people names.

Not the PP to whom you're responding, but a Bancroft parent. I hope that Bancroft and Shepherd parents can make the effort to be polite and empathetic throughout these difficult policy discussions. We definitely need to be active and engaged on these issues, but we also need to seek to understand where other people are coming from, whether in person or (always more difficult) on an anonymous forum. The bottom line is that every neighborhood in DC deserves a good middle school and high school option.

That said, to the PP who wants persuasive arguments why Bancroft and Shepherd should continue as Deal feeders, those arguments have been provided in this thread and elsewhere over the last several months. It's up to you whether or not you want to engage with those arguments.

Anonymous wrote:
You're an idiot. These boundaries - specifically these schools included into Deal - were created decades ago because DCPS lost a historic lawsuit. Why? Basically because Deal was too white.

This is not really true. The issue wasn't that Deal (and Wilson) were "too white", but that--at the height of the baby boom--the predominantly white schools were underenrolled, while the predominantly black middle and high schools EOTP were badly overcrowded. The 1968 boundaries thus aimed to equalize crowding across the schools. More radical, and more "integrative" proposals that involved shipping Deal/Wilson students EOTP were rejected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I agree Shepard and Bancroft should feed elsewhere. They do look to have gained a gerrymander via some political deal.

The only reason I can see that makes any sense is that DME looked at the available Deal/Wilson seats, decided she could fit in a few more kids, and that Shep/Bancroft just had the political pull (or got lucky) to be the ones selected.

But if there really are more available seats at Deal/Wilson, I think it makes more sense to put them into the openly available lottery rather than reserve them for Shep/Bancroft.

Does DME describe any justification anywhere for giving this special favor to Shep/Bancroft?

^ Useless post by an ignorant fool. Shepherd and Bancroft have been Deal feeders for decades. Maybe try shutting up when you don't know what you're talking about?

I'm sorry you're unable to engage in civil and constructive discussion. How about the fact that Shepard Park was not zoned for Wilson previously? The only route to Wilson was thru some ridiculous feeder argument, which as I hear tell was created during the Rhee administration. So don't give me yap about decades of history. And as for Bancroft, it's way outside the Deal-Wilson neighborhood, and far closer to other schools.

It doesn't take much to look at the map and see that Shapard and Bancroft should be zoned for east of the park middle/high schools that are part of the neighborhoods for those elementary schools.

If you want to offer some persuasive argument why not, I'm happy to be persuaded. But so far, you've just demonstrated that you are an abrasive person. Please convince me with something more than just your ability to call people names.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dcmom wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Bancroft/CHEC is that it gives no options for IB parents who don't want dual language. The net effect of these proposals will be to heighten a pattern that already exists. High SES/educated families in Mt P send their kids to Eaton (and Hearst) OOB. With mt pleasant continuing to feed Deal/Wilson, and IB Eaton families stuck with Hardy, you'll see more MtP families at Eaton-- thus keeping Eaton's scores up while IB parents start bailing at 3rd, 4th and 5th. Then the OOB Eaton but IB Deal MtP families will switch back to Deal for MS.

If bancroft/CHEC doesn't make sense, then having te two CHEC feeder schools be non-dual language makes even less sense.

This has been covered in other threads. There is a logical flaw in assuming that CHEC should stay bilingual and then asking why it doesn't have dual language feeders.

What you should ask instead is why CHEC's principal converted the school to bilingualism when she knew that the feeders were English-only. As covered in other threads, her reasons are her own. Apparently this was not endorsed by DCPS or DME which is why neither DCPS nor DME have made any moves to consolidate dual-langauge schools as feeders to CHEC, and have even, in the case of DME, proposed an entirely new bilingual MS program at McFarland.

I forgive anyone who doesn't know the past history of CHEC!! It's an odd history. But you need to understand it in order to understand why the status quo exists and why absolutely no-one serious has proposed that it suddenly become the MS for some or all of the DCPS dual language ESs. Not DCPS leadership, not the DME, not any politicians have proposed this. They may not be able to fully explain in public the reasons for their reluctance, which is why we come to this anonymous forum for explanations.

One possible solution is obvious: once the current principal leaves (she's been there for 30 years?) CHEC can be converted back to English programming and can use teaching assistants to handle the needs of ESL students. Simple.

Bacroft, Bruce Monroe, and Powell are all dual language and all currently feed to CHEC. If DCPS does not endorse CHEC, then they should address the oroblena directly with the school, rather than taking out the three schools that are dual language feeders and leaving in the two that are not.

According to the DME stats, Bancroft sent almost 100% of its class to Deal last year. Very few if any Bancroft students went to CHEC. So, removing the feed from Bancroft to CHEC will not change attendance patterns. Looks like about half the students from Powell and Bruce Monroe went to CHEC? A number of Marie Reed students and some Thomson students also attend CHEC.

Here are the stats from the DME where you can read all of this:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Feeder%20Pattern%20Analysis%20of%20DCPS%20Middle%20or%20MS%26HS%20Education%20Campuses_4.2.14.pdf

Sorry, my mistake - Powell is sending about 20 students but Bruce Monroe fewer than 5, from the above document.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dcmom wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Bancroft/CHEC is that it gives no options for IB parents who don't want dual language. The net effect of these proposals will be to heighten a pattern that already exists. High SES/educated families in Mt P send their kids to Eaton (and Hearst) OOB. With mt pleasant continuing to feed Deal/Wilson, and IB Eaton families stuck with Hardy, you'll see more MtP families at Eaton-- thus keeping Eaton's scores up while IB parents start bailing at 3rd, 4th and 5th. Then the OOB Eaton but IB Deal MtP families will switch back to Deal for MS.

If bancroft/CHEC doesn't make sense, then having te two CHEC feeder schools be non-dual language makes even less sense.

This has been covered in other threads. There is a logical flaw in assuming that CHEC should stay bilingual and then asking why it doesn't have dual language feeders.

What you should ask instead is why CHEC's principal converted the school to bilingualism when she knew that the feeders were English-only. As covered in other threads, her reasons are her own. Apparently this was not endorsed by DCPS or DME which is why neither DCPS nor DME have made any moves to consolidate dual-langauge schools as feeders to CHEC, and have even, in the case of DME, proposed an entirely new bilingual MS program at McFarland.

I forgive anyone who doesn't know the past history of CHEC!! It's an odd history. But you need to understand it in order to understand why the status quo exists and why absolutely no-one serious has proposed that it suddenly become the MS for some or all of the DCPS dual language ESs. Not DCPS leadership, not the DME, not any politicians have proposed this. They may not be able to fully explain in public the reasons for their reluctance, which is why we come to this anonymous forum for explanations.

One possible solution is obvious: once the current principal leaves (she's been there for 30 years?) CHEC can be converted back to English programming and can use teaching assistants to handle the needs of ESL students. Simple.

Bacroft, Bruce Monroe, and Powell are all dual language and all currently feed to CHEC. If DCPS does not endorse CHEC, then they should address the oroblena directly with the school, rather than taking out the three schools that are dual language feeders and leaving in the two that are not.

According to the DME stats, Bancroft sent almost 100% of its class to Deal last year. Very few if any Bancroft students went to CHEC. So, removing the feed from Bancroft to CHEC will not change attendance patterns. Looks like about half the students from Powell and Bruce Monroe went to CHEC? A number of Marie Reed students and some Thomson students also attend CHEC.

Here are the stats from the DME where you can read all of this:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Feeder%20Pattern%20Analysis%20of%20DCPS%20Middle%20or%20MS%26HS%20Education%20Campuses_4.2.14.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

dcmom wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Bancroft/CHEC is that it gives no options for IB parents who don't want dual language. The net effect of these proposals will be to heighten a pattern that already exists. High SES/educated families in Mt P send their kids to Eaton (and Hearst) OOB. With mt pleasant continuing to feed Deal/Wilson, and IB Eaton families stuck with Hardy, you'll see more MtP families at Eaton-- thus keeping Eaton's scores up while IB parents start bailing at 3rd, 4th and 5th. Then the OOB Eaton but IB Deal MtP families will switch back to Deal for MS.

If bancroft/CHEC doesn't make sense, then having te two CHEC feeder schools be non-dual language makes even less sense.

This has been covered in other threads. There is a logical flaw in assuming that CHEC should stay bilingual and then asking why it doesn't have dual language feeders.

What you should ask instead is why CHEC's principal converted the school to bilingualism when she knew that the feeders were English-only. As covered in other threads, her reasons are her own. Apparently this was not endorsed by DCPS or DME which is why neither DCPS nor DME have made any moves to consolidate dual-langauge schools as feeders to CHEC, and have even, in the case of DME, proposed an entirely new bilingual MS program at McFarland.

I forgive anyone who doesn't know the past history of CHEC!! It's an odd history. But you need to understand it in order to understand why the status quo exists and why absolutely no-one serious has proposed that it suddenly become the MS for some or all of the DCPS dual language ESs. Not DCPS leadership, not the DME, not any politicians have proposed this. They may not be able to fully explain in public the reasons for their reluctance, which is why we come to this anonymous forum for explanations.

One possible solution is obvious: once the current principal leaves (she's been there for 30 years?) CHEC can be converted back to English programming and can use teaching assistants to handle the needs of ESL students. Simple.

Bacroft, Bruce Monroe, and Powell are all dual language and all currently feed to CHEC. If DCPS does not endorse CHEC, then they should address the oroblena directly with the school, rather than taking out the three schools that are dual language feeders and leaving in the two that are not.

dcmom wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Bancroft/CHEC is that it gives no options for IB parents who don't want dual language. The net effect of these proposals will be to heighten a pattern that already exists. High SES/educated families in Mt P send their kids to Eaton (and Hearst) OOB. With mt pleasant continuing to feed Deal/Wilson, and IB Eaton families stuck with Hardy, you'll see more MtP families at Eaton-- thus keeping Eaton's scores up while IB parents start bailing at 3rd, 4th and 5th. Then the OOB Eaton but IB Deal MtP families will switch back to Deal for MS.

If bancroft/CHEC doesn't make sense, then having te two CHEC feeder schools be non-dual language makes even less sense.

This has been covered in other threads. There is a logical flaw in assuming that CHEC should stay bilingual and then asking why it doesn't have dual language feeders.

What you should ask instead is why CHEC's principal converted the school to bilingualism when she knew that the feeders were English-only. As covered in other threads, her reasons are her own. Apparently this was not endorsed by DCPS or DME which is why neither DCPS nor DME have made any moves to consolidate dual-langauge schools as feeders to CHEC, and have even, in the case of DME, proposed an entirely new bilingual MS program at McFarland.

I forgive anyone who doesn't know the past history of CHEC!! It's an odd history. But you need to understand it in order to understand why the status quo exists and why absolutely no-one serious has proposed that it suddenly become the MS for some or all of the DCPS dual language ESs. Not DCPS leadership, not the DME, not any politicians have proposed this. They may not be able to fully explain in public the reasons for their reluctance, which is why we come to this anonymous forum for explanations.

One possible solution is obvious: once the current principal leaves (she's been there for 30 years?) CHEC can be converted back to English programming and can use teaching assistants to handle the needs of ESL students. Simple.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Bancroft/CHEC is that it gives no options for IB parents who don't want dual language. The net effect of these proposals will be to heighten a pattern that already exists. High SES/educated families in Mt P send their kids to Eaton (and Hearst) OOB. With mt pleasant continuing to feed Deal/Wilson, and IB Eaton families stuck with Hardy, you'll see more MtP families at Eaton-- thus keeping Eaton's scores up while IB parents start bailing at 3rd, 4th and 5th. Then the OOB Eaton but IB Deal MtP families will switch back to Deal for MS.

If bancroft/CHEC doesn't make sense, then having te two CHEC feeder schools be non-dual language makes even less sense.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not economically diverse, fool......this is gerrymandering. pure and simple

You're an idiot. These boundaries - specifically these schools included into Deal - were created decades ago because DCPS lost a historic lawsuit. Why? Basically because Deal was too white. Nothing is being gerrymandered now, this is the continuation of a historic pattern. You're a bitter, envious dipsh*t.

Next time, trying learning before you bloviate.

Both sides in this argument are looking pretty foolish and uniformed to me. Perhaps both of you could calm down? Crestwood was included into Deal's boundaries as a result of the exact same lawsuit as Shepherd Park. Crestwood -- like just about every other friggin neighborhood in the city -- has had it's boundaries for decades. Neither of those saved us from losing access to Deal. Neither of those saved Shepherd Park or Bancroft which owe their good luck to being Deal feeders -- not lawsuits or length of service.

Crestwood -- and 16th Street Heights -- is being removed from Deal and assigned to a school that does not exist. In 2015, Roosevelt will become our assigned high school. While we will be grandfathered into Deal -- and those who attend Deal will get feeder rights to Wilson -- this is all moving much to fast for us. Anyone who thinks this is fair or even reasonable has a much different perspective than I do.

I have great hope for Roosevelt and a new middle school. I have no hope that either will be an acceptable alternative to Deal and Wilson in 2015. I have no animosity towards those neighborhoods that kept their favored feeder relationships. Good for you. I wish it could have been us. But, please don't try to act like we don't have grounds for legitimate complaint.

Not the PP to whom Jeff is responding, but a PP up thread, who has not called anyone an idiot

I would never suggest that Crestwood does not have a legitimate complaint, forgive the double negative.

I am however responding to the suggestion that Bancroft and Shepherd staying at Deal is somehow not justified on the facts, or is a result of some political deal. As you yourself have written, it is ridiculous to suggest such things.

Bravo Jeff and the poster above.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not economically diverse, fool......this is gerrymandering. pure and simple

You're an idiot. These boundaries - specifically these schools included into Deal - were created decades ago because DCPS lost a historic lawsuit. Why? Basically because Deal was too white. Nothing is being gerrymandered now, this is the continuation of a historic pattern. You're a bitter, envious dipsh*t.

Next time, trying learning before you bloviate.

Both sides in this argument are looking pretty foolish and uniformed to me. Perhaps both of you could calm down? Crestwood was included into Deal's boundaries as a result of the exact same lawsuit as Shepherd Park. Crestwood -- like just about every other friggin neighborhood in the city -- has had it's boundaries for decades. Neither of those saved us from losing access to Deal. Neither of those saved Shepherd Park or Bancroft which owe their good luck to being Deal feeders -- not lawsuits or length of service.

Crestwood -- and 16th Street Heights -- is being removed from Deal and assigned to a school that does not exist. In 2015, Roosevelt will become our assigned high school. While we will be grandfathered into Deal -- and those who attend Deal will get feeder rights to Wilson -- this is all moving much to fast for us. Anyone who thinks this is fair or even reasonable has a much different perspective than I do.

I have great hope for Roosevelt and a new middle school. I have no hope that either will be an acceptable alternative to Deal and Wilson in 2015. I have no animosity towards those neighborhoods that kept their favored feeder relationships. Good for you. I wish it could have been us. But, please don't try to act like we don't have grounds for legitimate complaint.

Not the PP to whom Jeff is responding, but a PP up thread, who has not called anyone an idiot

I would never suggest that Crestwood does not have a legitimate complaint, forgive the double negative.

I am however responding to the suggestion that Bancroft and Shepherd staying at Deal is somehow not justified on the facts, or is a result of some political deal. As you yourself have written, it is ridiculous to suggest such things.