Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Like Eaton was?Honestly I think that Hearst is more likely to be routed to Hardy before Shepherd, Bancroft or Lafayette are changed.
Yep
I agree - Hearst is small and has a lot of OOP kids, so less political muscle. And since it is in upper northwest, it's less politically problematic to change it to Hardy than to change Bancroft or Shepard. But that is just my guess, based on what happened with Eaton and (to a lesser degree) Oyster.
Anonymous wrote:That diversity lawsuit card is a BS red herring, in my view. It's based on the lawsuits from the 1960s and 1970s which dealt with actual disparate treatment among students and schools. None of it said Shepherd Park is required to be zoned forever to Deal Middle. That's just an item one SP poster likes to trot out to threaten a civil rights lawsuit if SP is ever re-zoned away from Deal. It's part of SP's impressive ability to wield political muscle to gain it benefits over other neighborhoods.
Anonymous wrote:I think that talking about current OOB students at feeder schools is a bit misleading. If you look at OOB enrollment at Deal feeders kindergarten and below, I think you will see that the trend is fizzling. I suspect that the OOB feeder students issue will resolve itself in the next 5 years.
Meanwhile, while I understand that Deal and Shepherd are not sending large numbers of kids to Deal, I think that logical school feeder patterns are necessary. There are schools that are closer to Deal and Shepherd. CHEC and MacFarland are both dual language - why doesn't Bancroft feed into one of these two schools. I partially agree with the poster who mentioned that Shepherd's IB curriculum makes it a good feeder to Deal. My child is at H.D. Cooke. We are also an IB school. Should we also feed to Deal, instead of CHEC, which is dual language (while we're not)?
The feeder patterns as they're currently established demonstrate that Mt. Pleasant and Shepard Park were able to exercise political power to prevent their children from being rezoned to less desirable public schools. That's it.
Anonymous wrote:Shepherd is currently only 1/3 IB, so presumably a lot of OOB come from there too, at least for now (the lower grades are a lot more IB, so overcrowding could return in a few years as they matriculate unless there's significant attrition btwn now and then).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Another option would be to get rid of the automatic right of OOB students at feeders to attend Deal.
Sadly, I am starting to come around to this conclusion. I was vehemently opposed to it before...but this does seem like the most viable option.
I agree with this route too. I've been saying it for years.
+100. I would hate to see any neighborhood be changed before this happens. Otherwise I agree, removing one of these schools isn't enough. Bancroft and Shepherd send about 30-50 kids a year. OOB feeders are more than that combined.
Yes, definitely makes sense to put the OOB kids from feeders at a lower order of priority than the in-bounds kids at feeders (although they'd remain at higher priority than OOB not at feeders). And obviously part of this is to cap enrollment at school capacity, and not allow overflow.
But given the numbers coming up the grades, I'm not sure that's enough to get the enrollment down to capacity. Removal of other feeders may be necessary. But that's a good thing because those removed feeders will help support a different middle school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:IMHO, the first to go will be Crestwood's super-grandfather legacy status. After that, it should be Shepherd next, but they currently have the political muscle to block it, so they would throw Bancroft under the bus. However, if any half-credible challenger can appear, then Bowser will be out after one term, which means Shepherd loses a big part of its political clout.
If I were in your shoes and thinking about where to buy in DC to ensure access to Deal, I'd pick the Lafayette or AU Park area. They seem safest. Alternatively, continue to live wherever you want and build equity now, and then just plan to move when future kid approaches school age.
You think Shepherd has political clout? I thought the hill was getting the clout these days.
Nah, Bowser is in Shepherd Park's pocket, and she gives them favors. As long as she remains in power, Shepherd is safe. But once she is gone, Shepherd makes sense to get realigned.
Shepherd did just fine under Williams, Fenty and Grey. It's an important neighborhood politically for any mayor.
This. Bowser had lived there for a few months. Shepherd Park's political clout is generations old.
Bowser still lives there.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:IMHO, the first to go will be Crestwood's super-grandfather legacy status. After that, it should be Shepherd next, but they currently have the political muscle to block it, so they would throw Bancroft under the bus. However, if any half-credible challenger can appear, then Bowser will be out after one term, which means Shepherd loses a big part of its political clout.
If I were in your shoes and thinking about where to buy in DC to ensure access to Deal, I'd pick the Lafayette or AU Park area. They seem safest. Alternatively, continue to live wherever you want and build equity now, and then just plan to move when future kid approaches school age.
You think Shepherd has political clout? I thought the hill was getting the clout these days.
Nah, Bowser is in Shepherd Park's pocket, and she gives them favors. As long as she remains in power, Shepherd is safe. But once she is gone, Shepherd makes sense to get realigned.
Shepherd did just fine under Williams, Fenty and Grey. It's an important neighborhood politically for any mayor.
This. Bowser had lived there for a few months. Shepherd Park's political clout is generations old.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:IMHO, the first to go will be Crestwood's super-grandfather legacy status. After that, it should be Shepherd next, but they currently have the political muscle to block it, so they would throw Bancroft under the bus. However, if any half-credible challenger can appear, then Bowser will be out after one term, which means Shepherd loses a big part of its political clout.
If I were in your shoes and thinking about where to buy in DC to ensure access to Deal, I'd pick the Lafayette or AU Park area. They seem safest. Alternatively, continue to live wherever you want and build equity now, and then just plan to move when future kid approaches school age.
You think Shepherd has political clout? I thought the hill was getting the clout these days.
Nah, Bowser is in Shepherd Park's pocket, and she gives them favors. As long as she remains in power, Shepherd is safe. But once she is gone, Shepherd makes sense to get realigned.
Shepherd did just fine under Williams, Fenty and Grey. It's an important neighborhood politically for any mayor.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:IMHO, the first to go will be Crestwood's super-grandfather legacy status. After that, it should be Shepherd next, but they currently have the political muscle to block it, so they would throw Bancroft under the bus. However, if any half-credible challenger can appear, then Bowser will be out after one term, which means Shepherd loses a big part of its political clout.
If I were in your shoes and thinking about where to buy in DC to ensure access to Deal, I'd pick the Lafayette or AU Park area. They seem safest. Alternatively, continue to live wherever you want and build equity now, and then just plan to move when future kid approaches school age.
You think Shepherd has political clout? I thought the hill was getting the clout these days.
Nah, Bowser is in Shepherd Park's pocket, and she gives them favors. As long as she remains in power, Shepherd is safe. But once she is gone, Shepherd makes sense to get realigned.
Shepherd did just fine under Williams, Fenty and Grey. It's an important neighborhood politically for any mayor.
Is it possible you might be a little biased in your analysis?