Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking. I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.

I understand your line of thinking -- that some people would rather build a new school and commute to it, just because they think more white students must yield a better school -- but I'm seriously doubting their view is quite so simple. I'm hoping to get someone who is an advocate of a new WotP school to explain how she views it in her own words.

No, Jeff is being dense. He still denies that the numbers dictate the need for either (a) reduced OOB access to Wilson or (b) a new HS in the area so that some of the current IB Wilson students (in the pipeline) can be diverted elsewhere. He sometimes appears to support a modified version of (a) in which the reduced access is voluntary due to improvements at Roosevelt. I'd like to see this, too, but one must plan for the possibility these improvements don't merit the voluntary take-up needed to alleviate looming overcrowding.

He's doing even less forecasting than DCPS, which is frightening. Look at the number. Look at the trends. The need will be there shortly, if it isn't there already.

Exactly where in that message am I even being quoted? Obviously, that doesn't rule out that I am being dense. I just don't see where I was being dense this time.

10:00 again. Thanks for your response, 10:46. Below are comments.

I look at the current enrollment numbers, combine them with population and student projections (which, historically, have been far too conservative about growth in upper NW), and I see a looming capacity issue at Wilson. Judging by how quickly Deal turned-around, the problem is only a few years away. In short, I don't believe that Wilson-as-currently-constructed can accommodate all of the students who currently have "rights" to it.

There are several solutions:
1) Build capacity at Wilson. The problem here is that Wilson is already a fairly large school as far as the optimal-size-literature goes, or so I'm told. (I haven't read these studies myself, so this stance could be completely wrong.)
2) Remove students currently having "right" to Wilson. This can take a few forms:
2a) Remove OOB rights. While this will solve the problem today, and for the next few years, I don't believe it will be a long-term solution as Hardy flips from OOB to IB over the next half-decade (like Deal before it). Plus, there are still tons of areas with "by right" access to Wilson; Wilson's catchment basin is absurd, extending from lower SW all the way up through Shepard Park in the far top EOTP. It's, literally, like half of the city.
2b) Shrink the catchment basin boundaries for Wilson, cleaving off areas EOTP and the SW. This would leave Wilson as, basically, the by-right high school for WOTP.
2c), similar to (2b), remove feeder schools, like Hardy.
Both 2b and 2c require finding another place to house these displaced students. For 2b, that would be at other existing schools. Since most of the students removed under 2b are already closer to another HS than Wilson, this seems logical. These other HSs, however, are not currently of the same quality as Wilson, so I'm hesitant to send these students to a failing school. For 2c, this would require creating a new HS. It is entirely unreasonable to force students to trek across the city for their by-right HS. If they chose to do so for one reason or another, fine. But you cannot make their neighborhood HS be far away. Period.

I agree with almost everything you wrote here. My major disagreement is that I don't necessarily agree 2c results in forcing children to trek east across the park to a faraway school. I think feeder rights can be reduced, perhaps in conjunction with 2b boundary changes, in a way that makes geographic and commuter sense for everyone. Therefore, I don't think 2b or 2c requires building new schools WotP.

And while I agree no one - no matter where they live - will want to send children to a failing school under 2b or 2c, I still don't see how building a new school rather than reinvigorating an existing school will ensure success. Yes, Roosevelt is a weak option today, but that's the whole point of DCPS improving its programs. And diverting lots of motivated kids and involved parents into Roosevelt will cause further improvements. By comparison, a not-yet-built school in NWDC lacks any positive track record and is no more likely to be any good than Roosevelt. If a new school is built in NWDC, then I'd imagine a likely outcome might be closing Roosevelt or other EotP schools, and diverting their students to the new NWDC school, which means it's essentially the same student body either way.

So, because I believe that 2a -- removing OOB "rights" -- would be politically unpalatable, and because I believe that students shouldn't be relegated from a good school to a failing school (2b), I'm left to support 2c as a last resort. Implicit in this support is that I believe the new HS created in NWNW would be good and not suffer from the same problem as 2b. That is, I don't believe that moving students currently IB for Wilson to a newly created NW HS would be equivalent to sending them to Cardozo or Roosevelt-as-of-now.

See above. I don't agree a NWDC school will be any better than Roosevelt. It certainly will be more expensive, and it makes little sense from a geography/commuter angle, since a huge portion of students will be traveling from EotP to these schools.

I get that it will be politically difficult to limit access to some WotP schools. However, I foresee similar political strife when someone proposes sinking more money into a fancy new set of schools for NWDC, while there are existing schools in other parts which are underutilized. I see lots of ugly, and racially divisive storylines evolving from that approach.

Furthermore, looking at the numbers and projections, I would expect this school to be largely filled with IB students. (This is where I differ most with Jeff. He seems to deny -- or, perhaps, hasn't consulted the projections and looked at the recent trends -- that there would be sufficient mass/need for another HS for these students. I'm confident that he's wrong.)

I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you unpack your math?

Really, 2c is the worst option. 1 and 2a are so much easier. And 2b is easier too. But, reality leads me to suspect 2c is the most viable option going-forward. I am reluctant in reaching this conclusion. (I personally asked DME to make a public statement supporting option (1). She declined, saying that she believed 2b was a better solution and that with 2b, 1 is no longer needed.)

As noted above, I think some combination of 2b and 2c (without building a new NWDC school) makes sense.

Does that explain my reasoning better? Feel free to ask additional questions; I'll chime in as available.

Very helpful. Please continue to contribute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking. I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.

I understand your line of thinking -- that some people would rather build a new school and commute to it, just because they think more white students must yield a better school -- but I'm seriously doubting their view is quite so simple. I'm hoping to get someone who is an advocate of a new WotP school to explain how she views it in her own words.

No, Jeff is being dense. He still denies that the numbers dictate the need for either (a) reduced OOB access to Wilson or (b) a new HS in the area so that some of the current IB Wilson students (in the pipeline) can be diverted elsewhere. He sometimes appears to support a modified version of (a) in which the reduced access is voluntary due to improvements at Roosevelt. I'd like to see this, too, but one must plan for the possibility these improvements don't merit the voluntary take-up needed to alleviate looming overcrowding.

He's doing even less forecasting than DCPS, which is frightening. Look at the number. Look at the trends. The need will be there shortly, if it isn't there already.

10:00 here. I am having trouble following your line of reasoning. Instead of pooping on what you think Jeff believes, can you tell me what YOU believe? Are you an advocate for a new WotP high school? If so, then why?

You're asking me (not previous posters), so I'll reply.

I look at the current enrollment numbers, combine them with population and student projections (which, historically, have been far too conservative about growth in upper NW), and I see a looming capacity issue at Wilson. Judging by how quickly Deal turned-around, the problem is only a few years away. In short, I don't believe that Wilson-as-currently-constructed can accommodate all of the students who currently have "rights" to it.

There are several solutions:
1) Build capacity at Wilson. The problem here is that Wilson is already a fairly large school as far as the optimal-size-literature goes, or so I'm told. (I haven't read these studies myself, so this stance could be completely wrong.)
2) Remove students currently having "right" to Wilson. This can take a few forms:
2a) Remove OOB rights. While this will solve the problem today, and for the next few years, I don't believe it will be a long-term solution as Hardy flips from OOB to IB over the next half-decade (like Deal before it). Plus, there are still tons of areas with "by right" access to Wilson; Wilson's catchment basin is absurd, extending from lower SW all the way up through Shepard Park in the far top EOTP. It's, literally, like half of the city.
2b) Shrink the catchment basin boundaries for Wilson, cleaving off areas EOTP and the SW. This would leave Wilson as, basically, the by-right high school for WOTP.
2c), similar to (2b), remove feeder schools, like Hardy.
Both 2b and 2c require finding another place to house these displaced students. For 2b, that would be at other existing schools. Since most of the students removed under 2b are already closer to another HS than Wilson, this seems logical. These other HSs, however, are not currently of the same quality as Wilson, so I'm hesitant to send these students to a failing school. For 2c, this would require creating a new HS. It is entirely unreasonable to force students to trek across the city for their by-right HS. If they chose to do so for one reason or another, fine. But you cannot make their neighborhood HS be far away. Period.

So, because I believe that 2a -- removing OOB "rights" -- would be politically unpalatable, and because I believe that students shouldn't be relegated from a good school to a failing school (2b), I'm left to support 2c as a last resort. Implicit in this support is that I believe the new HS created in NWNW would be good and not suffer from the same problem as 2b. That is, I don't believe that moving students currently IB for Wilson to a newly created NW HS would be equivalent to sending them to Cardozo or Roosevelt-as-of-now. Furthermore, looking at the numbers and projections, I would expect this school to be largely filled with IB students. (This is where I differ most with Jeff. He seems to deny -- or, perhaps, hasn't consulted the projections and looked at the recent trends -- that there would be sufficient mass/need for another HS for these students. I'm confident that he's wrong.)

Really, 2c is the worst option. 1 and 2a are so much easier. And 2b is easier too. But, reality leads me to suspect 2c is the most viable option going-forward. I am reluctant in reaching this conclusion. (I personally asked DME to make a public statement supporting option (1). She declined, saying that she believed 2b was a better solution and that with 2b, 1 is no longer needed.)

Does that explain my reasoning better? Feel free to ask additional questions; I'll chime in as available.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking. I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.

I understand your line of thinking -- that some people would rather build a new school and commute to it, just because they think more white students must yield a better school -- but I'm seriously doubting their view is quite so simple. I'm hoping to get someone who is an advocate of a new WotP school to explain how she views it in her own words.

WoTP parent here. I'll take a stab on my take. Mind you, most of this is anecdotal. I don't have the numbers to back this up, and I encourage people to correct me if I'm wrong. Here is how I see overcrowding issue for IB students in the Wilson feeder schools in Upper NW . The upcoming classes of students at Janney, Lafayette and Murch alone (5 classes per grade at some levels) could add up to the majority of available slots per grade at Deal and Wilson in a couple of years. I'm not even talking about OOB students at these schools. Add in the smaller number of student from ther other elementary schools that currently feed into Deal, and I think that overcrowding is a real possibility. This is why the DME is proposing moving some schools out of Deal and suggesting contingencies in the event of overcrowding for HS in WoTP elementary and MS zones (i.e., Oyster, Eaton and Hardy). If this is a reality, and kids who live within a mile or two south of Wilson are forced out because of overcrowding, where do they go? This question concerns me greatly. I don't know the answer.

Flame away if it makes you feel better.

Anonymous wrote:
I can't speak for Jeff, but personally I'm skeptical about DCPS's ability to revitalize a school. There are so many schools East of the Park that have been renovated, and failed to be revitalized: Eastern, McKinley, Dunbar, Cardozo, HD Cooke... But really, Eastern is the big one. Getting and IB program was supposed to make it draw from all over the city and yet the higher SES parts of the Hill just aren't that into it. So, to me the track record is not one of distinction.

As they say in DC, "mistakes were made" when Eastern was on the drawing board. DD was in a Cluster school at the time, but my memory on the Eastern redevelopment is fuzzy.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I wouldn't assume this. To the contrary, I think a new WotP school would be full of OOB kids and would be no different than a school EotP that offered the same programs and with same quality of staff.

Don't get me wrong, Jeff. I agree with you that a new school with strong DCPS backing is equally likely to be successful whether EotP or WotP. I feel pretty strongly that revitalizing Roosevelt is the right answer for DCPS and the city. But I get the sense some other people think geography is destiny, and I'm trying to understand why they feel that way.

I can't speak for Jeff, but personally I'm skeptical about DCPS's ability to revitalize a school. There are so many schools East of the Park that have been renovated, and failed to be revitalized: Eastern, McKinley, Dunbar, Cardozo, HD Cooke... But really, Eastern is the big one. Getting and IB program was supposed to make it draw from all over the city and yet the higher SES parts of the Hill just aren't that into it. So, to me the track record is not one of distinction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking. I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.

I understand your line of thinking -- that some people would rather build a new school and commute to it, just because they think more white students must yield a better school -- but I'm seriously doubting their view is quite so simple. I'm hoping to get someone who is an advocate of a new WotP school to explain how she views it in her own words.

No, Jeff is being dense. He still denies that the numbers dictate the need for either (a) reduced OOB access to Wilson or (b) a new HS in the area so that some of the current IB Wilson students (in the pipeline) can be diverted elsewhere. He sometimes appears to support a modified version of (a) in which the reduced access is voluntary due to improvements at Roosevelt. I'd like to see this, too, but one must plan for the possibility these improvements don't merit the voluntary take-up needed to alleviate looming overcrowding.

He's doing even less forecasting than DCPS, which is frightening. Look at the number. Look at the trends. The need will be there shortly, if it isn't there already.

10:00 here. I am having trouble following your line of reasoning. Instead of pooping on what you think Jeff believes, can you tell me what YOU believe? Are you an advocate for a new WotP high school? If so, then why?

No new high school WoTP. It goes against any good and modern urban planning principles, given that decision on where to settle are endogenous, not exogenous, and any location would be no more than 3-4 miles from an existing 1,500 kids . Plus, any WoTP HS would take no less than 6 years from today to becoming functional. So it is in ways a solution to the current problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking. I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.

I understand your line of thinking -- that some people would rather build a new school and commute to it, just because they think more white students must yield a better school -- but I'm seriously doubting their view is quite so simple. I'm hoping to get someone who is an advocate of a new WotP school to explain how she views it in her own words.

No, Jeff is being dense. He still denies that the numbers dictate the need for either (a) reduced OOB access to Wilson or (b) a new HS in the area so that some of the current IB Wilson students (in the pipeline) can be diverted elsewhere. He sometimes appears to support a modified version of (a) in which the reduced access is voluntary due to improvements at Roosevelt. I'd like to see this, too, but one must plan for the possibility these improvements don't merit the voluntary take-up needed to alleviate looming overcrowding.

He's doing even less forecasting than DCPS, which is frightening. Look at the number. Look at the trends. The need will be there shortly, if it isn't there already.

10:00 here. I am having trouble following your line of reasoning. Instead of pooping on what you think Jeff believes, can you tell me what YOU believe? Are you an advocate for a new WotP high school? If so, then why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking. I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.

I understand your line of thinking -- that some people would rather build a new school and commute to it, just because they think more white students must yield a better school -- but I'm seriously doubting their view is quite so simple. I'm hoping to get someone who is an advocate of a new WotP school to explain how she views it in her own words.

No, Jeff is being dense. He still denies that the numbers dictate the need for either (a) reduced OOB access to Wilson or (b) a new HS in the area so that some of the current IB Wilson students (in the pipeline) can be diverted elsewhere. He sometimes appears to support a modified version of (a) in which the reduced access is voluntary due to improvements at Roosevelt. I'd like to see this, too, but one must plan for the possibility these improvements don't merit the voluntary take-up needed to alleviate looming overcrowding.

He's doing even less forecasting than DCPS, which is frightening. Look at the number. Look at the trends. The need will be there shortly, if it isn't there already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking. I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.

I understand your line of thinking -- that some people would rather build a new school and commute to it, just because they think more white students must yield a better school -- but I'm seriously doubting their view is quite so simple. I'm hoping to get someone who is an advocate of a new WotP school to explain how she views it in her own words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I think it depends on whether there is a critical mass of well-prepared WOTP students and their involved parents. This is far, far more likely to happen in a school that is located closer to where they live than east of the park.

So would it be fair to say your view is that you think a school need WotP students/families to succeed? You think it's not so much where the school is located, but rather who is attending the school, and WotP families are somehow able to elevate a school toward success?

If I'm getting you wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I'm not trying to argue -- just trying to understand your viewpoint.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I wouldn't assume this. To the contrary, I think a new WotP school would be full of OOB kids and would be no different than a school EotP that offered the same programs and with same quality of staff.

Don't get me wrong, Jeff. I agree with you that a new school with strong DCPS backing is equally likely to be successful whether EotP or WotP. I feel pretty strongly that revitalizing Roosevelt is the right answer for DCPS and the city. But I get the sense some other people think geography is destiny, and I'm trying to understand why they feel that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current renovation for Ellington is $130m. Dunbary was $120m and built from scratch for a capacity of ~1200. Why would putting Ellington facility for ~600 at Shaw MS or Garnet-Patterson cost so much more?

Looking at the renovation already underway answers your question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcd4hTLEGQg

I don't go to the school or have any plans to do so. But even from the outside and having no dog in the fight, this tiresome refrain looks entitled, chauvinistic and an ugly reminder of uglier times. Please stop.

Where would you suggest as the site for the new Ward 2/Ward 3 high school then? Ellington makes the most sense, but given entrenched interests there may be unlikely. Unless you want Wilson to become a strictly west of the park high school, there will be a need for another HS in the area -- any sites that you would suggest instead?

Why don't you go after the old Hardy School on Foxhall instead? Lab School leases it and there may enough land there for your high school.

Maybe, but unforutately the site is less than half of Wilson's and that would be WITH taking all of the surrounding property which is owned by the Department of Parks & Rec. A bigger site could be had near Maclean Gardens by evicting the Second District police station and taking all of the surrounding land that is currently the McL Gardens playground, dog park and community gardens. Aside from predictable opposition to taking those uses, the real problem with that site is its relative proximity to Wilson itself.

It's ridicolos, your are talking about sites which are 1 mile or 3.5 miles from one another. No additional schools in Upper NW.

Yes, perhaps you are right. If you take additional schools off the table WOTP, the simplest solution to deal with Wilson and Deal overcrowding is to end OOB feeder rights from elementary schools and, if additional steps are necessary, shrink Wilson's far-flung boundary area a bit closer to the school. It would be a straightforward solution, although not necessarily a universally popular one politically.

"Far-flung" is exactly what you could call a new Western high school for the large population of students who need different options and won't be opting for private.

To alleviate overcrowding in Upper NW secondary schools, I vote for ending OOB feeder rights but would be ok with grandfathering students already in the system (but not for their siblings not yet of school age).

The tone-deafness here is a force of nature.

DCPS is not interested in any solution which involves you digging a moat around higher-performing DCPSs, and excluding the OOB students who use the schools in upper NW as an escape valve.

How much clearer does it need to be made to you?

So where do you propose that Upper NW students displaced from Deal and Wilson should go??

There aren't that many Upper NW students. Why would any of them be displaced? A handful need to be switched from one ES to another and another small group needs to move from one MS to another. But none of them need to be "displaced".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question I keep asking myself is WHY people who live east of the park would rather attend a new school with no track record in upper northwest than an existing (and revitalized) school that is east of the park and closer to their homes. That just makes no sense to me. Why build a new building far away from where you live, when there's already a renovated building a few blocks from home? Are they so certain that any school in the neighborhood where they live is doomed to fail?

Commuting sucks. No one prefers that. But they would rather commute than send their kids to bad schools.

Give people a good option close to home and they'll take it.

But why would you assume a new school in NW will be a good school, and a revitalized school EotP will be a bad school? Whatever might make the new NW school good can surely be replicated at an EotP school, can't it?

I would not assume that, but others here do. It's a shorthand version of the old "White is right" line of thinking.

I'm all in favor of building strong, sustainable schools close to where kids live, and in this city that means 80% EOTP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current renovation for Ellington is $130m. Dunbary was $120m and built from scratch for a capacity of ~1200. Why would putting Ellington facility for ~600 at Shaw MS or Garnet-Patterson cost so much more?

Looking at the renovation already underway answers your question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcd4hTLEGQg

I don't go to the school or have any plans to do so. But even from the outside and having no dog in the fight, this tiresome refrain looks entitled, chauvinistic and an ugly reminder of uglier times. Please stop.

For the record, it is not underway. It can be stopped.

The award has been made, the plans set and groundbreaking is weeks away. http://dgs.dc.gov/page/dgs-duke-ellington-school-for-the-arts-modernization-project

Only selfish, small-minded people want to stop it.

Was the contract awarded to Jeffrey Thompson?!