Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One Idea That Never Dies For UMC DCPS

1. Concentrate all UMC (preferably white) students at Deal/Wilson.
2. Lobby against affordable housing on Deal/Wilson cachement.
3. Lobby against OOB students in Deal/Wilson cachement.
4. Lobby against expanded transportation in Deal/Wilson cachement by clutching pearls re: “buses destroying foundations of our homes.”
5. Lobby, salivating, for sueing residency cheaters, preferably brown.
6. Lobby, salivating, for sueing boundry cheaters, preferably brown.
7. Blame parents in EOTP/across the river schools for bad parenting, poverty.
8. Rinse and repeat.

Vs. the one other idea: keep sending as many students as possible to Deal/Wilson in hopes that no politically unpleasant decisions need be made and no one notices the decline in educational quality for every single student regardless if color due to overcrowding.

What is your answer to the question in the title of this thread?

A little known fact is Ward 3 today contains the second highest number of rent controlled apartments among DC’s wards. These tends to be units in older, non-luxury buildings. Yet the “smart growth” lobby, while professing to support affordable housing, is actively pushing for amendments to the DC comprehensive plan which, if enacted, would upzone many of these rent controlled apartment buildings, leading to their demolition and a significant reduction of affordable housing in the Wilson cachement area. Don’t be seduced by the disingenuous spin of big development special interests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One Idea That Never Dies For UMC DCPS

1. Concentrate all UMC (preferably white) students at Deal/Wilson.
2. Lobby against affordable housing on Deal/Wilson cachement.
3. Lobby against OOB students in Deal/Wilson cachement.
4. Lobby against expanded transportation in Deal/Wilson cachement by clutching pearls re: “buses destroying foundations of our homes.”
5. Lobby, salivating, for sueing residency cheaters, preferably brown.
6. Lobby, salivating, for sueing boundry cheaters, preferably brown.
7. Blame parents in EOTP/across the river schools for bad parenting, poverty.
8. Rinse and repeat.

Vs. the one other idea: keep sending as many students as possible to Deal/Wilson in hopes that no politically unpleasant decisions need be made and no one notices the decline in educational quality for every single student regardless if color due to overcrowding.

What is your answer to the question in the title of this thread?

A little known fact is Ward 3 today contains the second highest number of rent controlled apartments among DC’s wards. These tends to be units in older, non-luxury buildings. Yet the “smart growth” lobby, while professing to support affordable housing, is actively pushing for amendments to the DC comprehensive plan which, if enacted, would upzone many of these rent controlled apartment buildings, leading to their demolition and a significant reduction of affordable housing in the Wilson cachement area. Don’t be seduced by the disingenuous spin of big development special interests.

Ward 3 has a lot older residents in those rent controlled apartments, though. Where are the kids in rent control in Ward 3?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One Idea That Never Dies For UMC DCPS

1. Concentrate all UMC (preferably white) students at Deal/Wilson.
2. Lobby against affordable housing on Deal/Wilson cachement.
3. Lobby against OOB students in Deal/Wilson cachement.
4. Lobby against expanded transportation in Deal/Wilson cachement by clutching pearls re: “buses destroying foundations of our homes.”
5. Lobby, salivating, for sueing residency cheaters, preferably brown.
6. Lobby, salivating, for sueing boundry cheaters, preferably brown.
7. Blame parents in EOTP/across the river schools for bad parenting, poverty.
8. Rinse and repeat.

Vs. the one other idea: keep sending as many students as possible to Deal/Wilson in hopes that no politically unpleasant decisions need be made and no one notices the decline in educational quality for every single student regardless if color due to overcrowding.

What is your answer to the question in the title of this thread?

Anonymous wrote:In response to the post about a city not housing its working poor/class. This is non-sequitur as DC has fictitious borders more so than most cities. Anywhere else most of close in MD and VA would be part of “the city”. Pushing the working class to PG or Silver Spring counts as living in DC except for the cachet of the DC address. Being poor has consequences and not getting the best accommodations or being able to provide everything you want for your child is part of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could just send the Hardy kids to Cardozo. Problem solved.

Yes, sending kids who live in the Palisades to Cardozo completely makes sense from the standpoint of "neighborhood schools." #sarcasm

pffft. Like it's a cinch to drive from Palisades to Wilson, either.

Or take public transportation.

But it does again highlight the stupidity of the Ellington renovation when the school instead could have been re-opened as Western and Ellington moved to one of the grossly under-enrolled WOTP school.

But for whatever reason lots of Ellington boosters think the school needs to be in Georgetown despite the lack of links to any nearby performing arts institutions or students from Georgetown.

Yup, that decision is looking worse and worse each year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One Idea That Never Dies For UMC DCPS

1. Concentrate all UMC (preferably white) students at Deal/Wilson.
2. Lobby against affordable housing on Deal/Wilson cachement.
3. Lobby against OOB students in Deal/Wilson cachement.
4. Lobby against expanded transportation in Deal/Wilson cachement by clutching pearls re: “buses destroying foundations of our homes.”
5. Lobby, salivating, for sueing residency cheaters, preferably brown.
6. Lobby, salivating, for sueing boundry cheaters, preferably brown.
7. Blame parents in EOTP/across the river schools for bad parenting, poverty.
8. Rinse and repeat.

Vs. the one other idea: keep sending as many students as possible to Deal/Wilson in hopes that no politically unpleasant decisions need be made and no one notices the decline in educational quality for every single student regardless if color due to overcrowding.

What is your answer to the question in the title of this thread?

Anonymous wrote:One Idea That Never Dies For UMC DCPS

1. Concentrate all UMC (preferably white) students at Deal/Wilson.
2. Lobby against affordable housing on Deal/Wilson cachement.
3. Lobby against OOB students in Deal/Wilson cachement.
4. Lobby against expanded transportation in Deal/Wilson cachement by clutching pearls re: “buses destroying foundations of our homes.”
5. Lobby, salivating, for sueing residency cheaters, preferably brown.
6. Lobby, salivating, for sueing boundry cheaters, preferably brown.
7. Blame parents in EOTP/across the river schools for bad parenting, poverty.
8. Rinse and repeat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the redistricting the Lafayette neighborhood technically may be in Ward 4 but it certainly is not of Ward 4. Ward 4 has a checkered political history. It was part of Ward 3 for years and that is how most residents are oriented — west of the Park. It would be unthinkable if Lafayette no longer fed to Deal and Wilson.

Change is hard but not impossible.

NP here. It's ridiculous to rezone homes that families likely specifically bought for the school boundaries. It makes a lot more sense to end OOB feeder rights.

Well everyone is discussing throwing Shepherd out and I bought in the neighborhood because my child is at Deal.

Welcome to the club. John Eaton fed to Deal for nearly a century and wasn't gerrymandered in. Yet Mary Cheh was willing to toss deal out like yesterday's dishwater.

Why do you all keep saying Shepherd was gerrymandered in? They weren’t a K-8 and there was no New North Middle when the last re-zoning came about. There was no choice but to keep Shepherd in its current path to Deal.

Shepherd had only fed Deal for about 10 years at the last re-zone, they used to feed Paul which converted to charter circa 2004.

Anonymous wrote:Shepherd ES was zoned for Paul Middle School back in the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the redistricting the Lafayette neighborhood technically may be in Ward 4 but it certainly is not of Ward 4. Ward 4 has a checkered political history. It was part of Ward 3 for years and that is how most residents are oriented — west of the Park. It would be unthinkable if Lafayette no longer fed to Deal and Wilson.

Change is hard but not impossible.

NP here. It's ridiculous to rezone homes that families likely specifically bought for the school boundaries. It makes a lot more sense to end OOB feeder rights.

Well everyone is discussing throwing Shepherd out and I bought in the neighborhood because my child is at Deal.

Welcome to the club. John Eaton fed to Deal for nearly a century and wasn't gerrymandered in. Yet Mary Cheh was willing to toss deal out like yesterday's dishwater.

Why do you all keep saying Shepherd was gerrymandered in? They weren’t a K-8 and there was no New North Middle when the last re-zoning came about. There was no choice but to keep Shepherd in its current path to Deal.

Shepherd had only fed Deal for about 10 years at the last re-zone, they used to feed Paul which converted to charter circa 2004.

Didn’t DCPS surplus Paul — and then subsequently sell the building?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they made New North a STEM test-in, and then used the Takoma Park model of checking the educational records of all fifth-graders city-wide to identify students who were performing above grade level and then notified these parents that—unless they opted out—their children would undergo testing for the program, they would identify enough students for a STEM magnet.

There are two ideas that never die in DCPS:

1. Concentrate all of the high-achieving students to make more schools that are appealing to families of other high-achieving students (i.e. magnets).
2. Disperse all of the high-achieving students to make more schools that are appealing to families of other high-achieving students. (i.e. rezone WOTP).

Neither will work, for the simple reason that there aren't enough high-achieving students in the system for either to work.

Ah, but you assume that all relevant data points are static. There are more and more high-achieving students in the system every year. And if you take a "if you build it, they will come" approach, perhaps even more will remain in the system (i.e., not leave for the burbs or private) if there were magnet options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the redistricting the Lafayette neighborhood technically may be in Ward 4 but it certainly is not of Ward 4. Ward 4 has a checkered political history. It was part of Ward 3 for years and that is how most residents are oriented — west of the Park. It would be unthinkable if Lafayette no longer fed to Deal and Wilson.

Change is hard but not impossible.

NP here. It's ridiculous to rezone homes that families likely specifically bought for the school boundaries. It makes a lot more sense to end OOB feeder rights.

Well everyone is discussing throwing Shepherd out and I bought in the neighborhood because my child is at Deal.

Welcome to the club. John Eaton fed to Deal for nearly a century and wasn't gerrymandered in. Yet Mary Cheh was willing to toss deal out like yesterday's dishwater.

Why do you all keep saying Shepherd was gerrymandered in? They weren’t a K-8 and there was no New North Middle when the last re-zoning came about. There was no choice but to keep Shepherd in its current path to Deal.

Shepherd had only fed Deal for about 10 years at the last re-zone, they used to feed Paul which converted to charter circa 2004.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they made New North a STEM test-in, and then used the Takoma Park model of checking the educational records of all fifth-graders city-wide to identify students who were performing above grade level and then notified these parents that—unless they opted out—their children would undergo testing for the program, they would identify enough students for a STEM magnet.

There are two ideas that never die in DCPS:

1. Concentrate all of the high-achieving students to make more schools that are appealing to families of other high-achieving students (i.e. magnets).
2. Disperse all of the high-achieving students to make more schools that are appealing to families of other high-achieving students. (i.e. rezone WOTP).

Neither will work, for the simple reason that there aren't enough high-achieving students in the system for either to work.