Shepherd Park has a single "Deal" bus that students use to get to both schools, though by high school many students opt for Metro instead. A longer ride but quieter.

Anonymous wrote:

Duh - Wilson is across the street from Deal

Not really duh, so there are high school students on the bus with the middle schoolers? I only ask because I heard parents complaining about the Deal bus at the playground.

There are both Deal and Wilson buses from the Crestwood area. I don't know about Shepherd Park, but I assume it's the same.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it's strange they maintained a link to Wilson & Deal, while other similarly situated neighborhoods lost their link, so I'm trying to figure out what justifies the link for Shepherd Park & Bancroft. But I'm really struggling to get straightforward answers from anyone. Have you got any other answers besides the ones 15:32 offered?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.

Bancroft is also a dual feeder--feeds into Deal and CHEC. Makes more sense to me for Bancroft to feed to CHEC than to Deal. (I am EOTP and sending my kid to my in-boundary non-Bancroft school, so no dog in this fight.)

That's a fair point. I didn't know until now that Bancroft was a dual feeder. I guess the immediate response is that CHEC's middle school doesn't have an English track. But, that's an entirely different bag of worms.

But wouldn't that be a reason for Bancroft to feed there, since they don't have an English track either?

Is that true? If so, I will actually learn two things today. I'll have to mark it on my calendar.

Anonymous wrote:
I gather that your own view is what someone articulated earlier: that the historical link to Wilson & Deal gives Shepherd Park & Bancroft some right to maintain that link, because DCPS wants to change only the bare minimum necessary to ease overcrowding at Wilson/Deal. Is that right?

My own view is that I'm about to burst a blood vein because people seem so willing to acknowledge the obvious:

1) Historical links don't mean squat. The boundaries have not been revisited since the 1960s. Unless your school closed, your current links are "historic".

2) The DME proposed three examples of student assignment policies. None of the three included geographic boundaries beyond elementary school.

3) Apparently, there was no public outcry demanding geographic boundaries beyond elementary school.

4) Apparently, and there is evidence to support this, there was a public outcry in support of the option that focused on predictable feeder patterns based on neighborhood schools.

5) The Advisory Committee released recommendations reflecting the public input. This heavily favored elementary schools that fed popular middle and high schools.

6) When overcrowding still suggested a need to remove one Deal feeder, Eaton was selected. There are a number of reasons that this was the practical choice, but those can be discussed elsewhere.

7) I don't think there was ever a question -- nor should there be one now -- as to why Bancroft and Shepherd were able to remain as feeders. The appropriate question would have been "why shouldn't they?". There might be some compelling reasons -- particularly for Bancroft -- but those are for others to provide. Myself, I'm satisfied that moving Eaton was the least disruptive choice.

Duh - Wilson is across the street from Deal

Not really duh, so there are high school students on the bus with the middle schoolers? I only ask because I heard parents complaining about the Deal bus at the playground.

Which do you consider to be "similarly situated" to Bancroft and Shepherd?

Well, the Crestwood & 16th Street Heights neighborhoods are the obvious examples. And at the high school level, there are other neighborhoods like SW and Logan that lost access, but would seem to provide many of the same diversity attributes. Of course, I'm sure smart people can make arguments for and against each particular neighborhood. I'm not staking a position yet though, but instead just asking questions.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it's strange they maintained a link to Wilson & Deal, while other similarly situated neighborhoods lost their link, so I'm trying to figure out what justifies the link for Shepherd Park & Bancroft. But I'm really struggling to get straightforward answers from anyone. Have you got any other answers besides the ones 15:32 offered?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.

Bancroft is also a dual feeder--feeds into Deal and CHEC. Makes more sense to me for Bancroft to feed to CHEC than to Deal. (I am EOTP and sending my kid to my in-boundary non-Bancroft school, so no dog in this fight.)

That's a fair point. I didn't know until now that Bancroft was a dual feeder. I guess the immediate response is that CHEC's middle school doesn't have an English track. But, that's an entirely different bag of worms.

But wouldn't that be a reason for Bancroft to feed there, since they don't have an English track either?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it's strange they maintained a link to Wilson & Deal, while other similarly situated neighborhoods lost their link, so I'm trying to figure out what justifies the link for Shepherd Park & Bancroft. But I'm really struggling to get straightforward answers from anyone. Have you got any other answers besides the ones 15:32 offered?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.

Bancroft is also a dual feeder--feeds into Deal and CHEC. Makes more sense to me for Bancroft to feed to CHEC than to Deal. (I am EOTP and sending my kid to my in-boundary non-Bancroft school, so no dog in this fight.)

That's a fair point. I didn't know until now that Bancroft was a dual feeder. I guess the immediate response is that CHEC's middle school doesn't have an English track. But, that's an entirely different bag of worms.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's strange they maintained a link to Wilson & Deal, while other similarly situated neighborhoods lost their link, so I'm trying to figure out what justifies the link for Shepherd Park & Bancroft. But I'm really struggling to get straightforward answers from anyone. Have you got any other answers besides the ones 15:32 offered?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.

I appreciate your input, Jeff. But as I made clear, I'm not shilling any complaint for Eaton, and I'm not making an argument yet, so any effort to pigeonhole my questions into some neat box will be frustrating for both of us. I'm just trying to understand why some people feel so strongly that Shepherd Park & Bancroft must remain linked to Wilson & Deal.

Once I understand the arguments, I can develop my own views. Until then, I'm working hard to remain open-minded. (FWIW, I know that process flies in the face of how some people act -- they decide their position first, and then look at evidence second -- but I'm just old-fashioned in how I approach these things!)

I gather that your own view is what someone articulated earlier: that the historical link to Wilson & Deal gives Shepherd Park & Bancroft some right to maintain that link, because DCPS wants to change only the bare minimum necessary to ease overcrowding at Wilson/Deal. Is that right?

This thread is exhausting......

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the previous poster. However, I think that the questions have been answered very well. Keeping Bancroft and Shepherd as feeders into Deal and Wilson accomplish a variety of things. As mentioned, the schools already feed into Deal. This addresses predictability. These neighborhoods are fairly close to Deal (vs adding other neighborhoods that are currently not Deal feeders) and have transportation systems that support it (metro bus from Mount Pleasant). This addresses neighborhood schools - students will not be trekking across the city to go to school. Keeping Bancroft and Shepherd as feeders to Deal and Wilson will allow these schools to be racially and economically diverse. If you take Bancroft and Shepherd out, Deal and Wilson will be much much much less diverse and increase the the schools' segregation. This addresses the committee's priority of diversity.

Many thanks for the clear response. So I see these arguments:
1. Shepherd & Bancroft should feed to Wilson & Deal because they were previously slated to feed Deal, so linking them to Wilson & Deal would fit with the predictions/expectations of people living in those neighborhoods.
2. Shepherd & Bancroft should feed to Wilson & Deal because they are fairly close to Wilson & Deal (only 3-4 miles away), and there is public transportation.
3. Shepherd & Bancroft should feed to Wilson & Deal because their students could add to diversity at Wilson & Deal.
Did I miss any? Do you have others?

As for 15:21, you seem more interested in uncovering some secret motive or bias, so you can attack my position. Let me be clear: I've got no position yet on Bancroft & Shepherd Park. I think it's strange they maintained a link to Wilson & Deal, while other similarly situated neighborhoods lost their link, so I'm trying to figure out what justifies the link for Shepherd Park & Bancroft. But I'm really struggling to get straightforward answers from anyone. Have you got any other answers besides the ones 15:32 offered?

Which do you consider to be "similarly situated" to Bancroft and Shepherd?

Duh - Wilson is across the street from Deal

How is the Shepherd bus to Deal? Does it go to Wilson too?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it's strange they maintained a link to Wilson & Deal, while other similarly situated neighborhoods lost their link, so I'm trying to figure out what justifies the link for Shepherd Park & Bancroft. But I'm really struggling to get straightforward answers from anyone. Have you got any other answers besides the ones 15:32 offered?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.

Bancroft is also a dual feeder--feeds into Deal and CHEC. Makes more sense to me for Bancroft to feed to CHEC than to Deal. (I am EOTP and sending my kid to my in-boundary non-Bancroft school, so no dog in this fight.)

Anonymous wrote:
I think it's strange they maintained a link to Wilson & Deal, while other similarly situated neighborhoods lost their link, so I'm trying to figure out what justifies the link for Shepherd Park & Bancroft. But I'm really struggling to get straightforward answers from anyone. Have you got any other answers besides the ones 15:32 offered?

I'm surprised there is still confusion about this. The advisory committee decided to implement strong feeder relationships. So, any neighborhood whose elementary school did not feed to Deal was out. Then, expected overcrowding still required one Deal feeder to be eliminated. The school that was already a dual feeder was selected. If your complaint does not involve Eaton, your argument is with the decision to prioritize feeder relationships, not the fact that two Deal feeders were allowed to continue being Deal feeders.