Anonymous wrote:

You guys aren't getting it. If you only remove Shepherd and Bancroft, you're still left with an overcrowded middle school. Janney continues to grow, as does Hearst and Lafayette. You have either remove one more school or don't remove any and open another middle school.

I think you are mistaken. According to the DME material as from the boundary adjustment, Bancroft was supplying 11% of Deal students, and Shepherd was sending 7%. An 18% reduction in Deal's student body would put it well below the capacity max, which would leave room for the at-risk population DCPS was trying to mandate for each school, and potentially even leave room for future neighborhood growth.

Try the math using capacity at Deal and Janny and Lafayette's 3rd grade classes. Also, do you have link?

You guys aren't getting it. If you only remove Shepherd and Bancroft, you're still left with an overcrowded middle school. Janney continues to grow, as does Hearst and Lafayette. You have either remove one more school or don't remove any and open another middle school.

I think you are mistaken. According to the DME material as from the boundary adjustment, Bancroft was supplying 11% of Deal students, and Shepherd was sending 7%. An 18% reduction in Deal's student body would put it well below the capacity max, which would leave room for the at-risk population DCPS was trying to mandate for each school, and potentially even leave room for future neighborhood growth.

Anonymous wrote:Y'all can have our spot at deal. I think it sounds awful.

+1 I'd rather have Hardy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the numbers, it's the optics.

Agreed. What is the racial composition of those ~350 students referenced I wonder?

So what you're really saying is that there's a racial quota for Deal and Wilson, right? Even if it makes perfect sense from all logic to remove feeder rights or change the feeder pattern, it just can't be done because someone might claim racism. Correct?

If that's what you're saying, let's get it out there in the open.

Yep that's what we are saying.

Y'all can have our spot at deal. I think it sounds awful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you look at it all of NW has been exercising its political muscle over SW, SE, and NE for the longest. You all are the same.

SP is part of NW. Not sure what you're talking about.

I am grouping SP into the category with the other schools that happen to be in Ward 3. There is a sense of entitlement amongst the parents.

Hear hear!

People who feel entitled to send their kids to someone else's neighborhood are, well, entitled.

What if instead they fixed their own neighborhood schools?

In a city like DC, which has already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the complete rebuilding/ renovation of a good number of failing schools, that should be the obvious starting point for accusatory whiners like previous PP.

Deal is only in one neighborhood. More than one school in other neighborhoods feed to it. So are you suggesting Hearst, Lafayette, Shepherd, and Bancroft me removed from Deal? You can't have one middle school for every neighborhood.

I'm suggesting that physical proximity from one's residence is the paramount criteria to decide in our neighborhood-based system. Let the chips fall where they may -- much better than the constant politicking and fighting around.

Amen. How about one MS per Ward?

From my perspective the Ward borders are irrelevant to this -- it's about the physical proximity to the school.

True, it should be a radius around the school.

You guys aren't getting it. If you only remove Shepherd and Bancroft, you're still left with an overcrowded middle school. Janney continues to grow, as does Hearst and Lafayette. You have either remove one more school or don't remove any and open another middle school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the the great white wish/hope. So sad...

You always miss the point. No one arguing to shrink the boundary gives a shit what color the students at Deal are. They just want Deal to reduce its population so it's not so far overcapacity. I know you think it gives you some moral high ground to claim any change is secret racism, but you are wrong. If you want to have Deal access rights, just move into one of the neighborhoods near Deal.

+1. Very simple, really.

+2

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the numbers, it's the optics.

Agreed. What is the racial composition of those ~350 students referenced I wonder?

So what you're really saying is that there's a racial quota for Deal and Wilson, right? Even if it makes perfect sense from all logic to remove feeder rights or change the feeder pattern, it just can't be done because someone might claim racism. Correct?

If that's what you're saying, let's get it out there in the open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the the great white wish/hope. So sad...

You always miss the point. No one arguing to shrink the boundary gives a shit what color the students at Deal are. They just want Deal to reduce its population so it's not so far overcapacity. I know you think it gives you some moral high ground to claim any change is secret racism, but you are wrong. If you want to have Deal access rights, just move into one of the neighborhoods near Deal.

+1. Very simple, really.

Anonymous wrote:That's the the great white wish/hope. So sad...

You always miss the point. No one arguing to shrink the boundary gives a shit what color the students at Deal are. They just want Deal to reduce its population so it's not so far overcapacity. I know you think it gives you some moral high ground to claim any change is secret racism, but you are wrong. If you want to have Deal access rights, just move into one of the neighborhoods near Deal.

For all the posters that are saying how about we do not give the OOB kids the option of giving them the By-right-to-feed option or accounting that we bring over 30% of OOB children to deal. I do not know the numbers or do I care to but what I will say is this I live in the Ward 7 district in which I have purchased a home 9 years ago, I have put my 2 older children in a Ward 7 High School and Elementary School, but I refuse to put my now 5 year old DS in any Ward 7 elementary school. I want what's best for my son and I will give him that. My son was recently matched to Shepherd Elementary School for K and although it will be a hike from my Ward 7 home to Shepherd (my job sits in the middle to both)I am willing to sacrifice that trip and eventually to his middle feeder which would be Deal and later Wilson. I don't have the big money to afford to move in Ward 4 and definitely not Ward 3. I want what every working class mom wants for their child a excellent educational opportunity, the opportunity to learn in a diverse atmosphere, and for a safe environment as he travel to and from school as he matures and is able to commute on his own (7th or 8th grade). So before anyone down play OOB children just know some parents do work, have homes, have cars, and pay taxes just as you do. But one thing is for sure while my son will be attending Shepherd Elementary School and they decide not to allow my son his feeder rights to Deal and Wilson I will do what I have to do and occupy(Lie) my aunts address on Connecticut Ave. which she owns a condo.

I am one of the PPs who mentioned Hearst. I am not saying I think it should get zoned out of Deal. But as someone currently looking for a house, I personally think Hearst being zoned out of Deal is more likely than Bancroft or Shepard. Not that it makes more sense, just that it may be more likely when you think about the optics/politics. Or at least it is likely enough that I would not buy in Hearst under the assumption that I would be zoned for Deal until the end of time (I would only make that assumption for Janney and Murch).

That is a completely different question from whether I think the policy of zoning Hearst to Hardy makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You've been saying it for years and that's because it will never happen. It is political suicide and to make it happen you've have to grandfather in a generation. So fine, do it but do it now and say it becomes effective several years down the road.

Why do you think it's political suicide to say OOB students do not get automatic feeder rights, and their feeder rights are only if there is excess space at the next school? That just seems logical.

I also can't imagine the OOB population that would lose access is so huge that it would create a political problem. Deal is currently about 120 students over capacity, and IIRC, that's about the OOB population at Deal. So that's 120 unhappy families. I think Wilson might have another 150-200 in that same position. So altogether, we are talking fewer than 350 families - 700 votes if each has two parents voting. Doesn't seem like a political threat of large proportions. But there are lots more in-bounds families at Deal and Wilson who are frustrated by the overcrowding, and still others who opted for private schools to avoid the overcrowding. That seems like a bigger number than the OOB families that might lose feeder rights.

What am I missing?

It's not the numbers, it's the optics.

True, a demagogue could use such a logical policy to stir the racial pot.

It's not the numbers, it's the optics.

Agreed. What is the racial composition of those ~350 students referenced I wonder?

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.

You've been saying it for years and that's because it will never happen. It is political suicide and to make it happen you've have to grandfather in a generation. So fine, do it but do it now and say it becomes effective several years down the road.

Why do you think it's political suicide to say OOB students do not get automatic feeder rights, and their feeder rights are only if there is excess space at the next school? That just seems logical.

I also can't imagine the OOB population that would lose access is so huge that it would create a political problem. Deal is currently about 120 students over capacity, and IIRC, that's about the OOB population at Deal. So that's 120 unhappy families. I think Wilson might have another 150-200 in that same position. So altogether, we are talking fewer than 350 families - 700 votes if each has two parents voting. Doesn't seem like a political threat of large proportions. But there are lots more in-bounds families at Deal and Wilson who are frustrated by the overcrowding, and still others who opted for private schools to avoid the overcrowding. That seems like a bigger number than the OOB families that might lose feeder rights.

What am I missing?

It's not the numbers, it's the optics.