Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With respect to Oyster, in boundary kids should go to Hardy (at least those in the Woodley Park area) if they don't want to continue in the Spanish immersion program. Those just across the Calvert St. bridge and along the Adams Mill area could be rezoned for another middle school.

You may not realize that the few in-bounds students (from Woodley Park as well as the western parts of Adams Morgan and Mt. Pleasant) who come to Deal after Oyster were once the most academically motivated Oyster kids. They number among Deal's strongest students. Proximity arguments aside, Deal isn't called upon to absorb very many former Oyster kids each year, and those who do come were the cream of the crop.

As far as re-drawing boundaries though, that hardly makes a difference. They're no more "deserving" than any other Oyster student, which is why they should either go to Adams if they want to continue Spanish, or Hardy if they don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shepherd is 94% non-white and Deal is 59% non-white. Removing any feeder school that is more diverse than Deal makes Deal less diverse.

This is the fundamental, unsolvable problem with redistricting Deal: the schools that are further away are more diverse.

While I agree with your point, generally, I quibble with your wording and I think it's important to correct. "Diverse" isn't synonymous with "not white." There has to be an array or a variety. But, alas, the schools that are "further away" aren't more 'diverse' than the schools closer in. They're just as lopsided -- but not with white kids.


Sheperd is not more "diverse" than Murch or Eaton or even Hearst -- Sheperd is more lopsided toward just one race actually than either Murch OR Eaton is. Sheperd is on par with Lafayette with its over-representation of one race vs. any other races.

It's not just about race when it comes to Shepherd. Shepherd is more diverse economically as well.

OMG - all this talking in code! For those of us not in the know, what does "Shepard is more lopsided toward just one race," and "the schools that are further away are more diverse" mean? Can we all just break it down here, and talk specifics? I had a somewhat hard time reading between the lines re above, but did PPs mean to say (as I assumed, and got annoyed because they were too wimpy to say what they mean) that these schools are majority black (= non-diverse)?

Anonymous wrote:

Shepherd is 94% non-white and Deal is 59% non-white. Removing any feeder school that is more diverse than Deal makes Deal less diverse.

This is the fundamental, unsolvable problem with redistricting Deal: the schools that are further away are more diverse.

While I agree with your point, generally, I quibble with your wording and I think it's important to correct. "Diverse" isn't synonymous with "not white." There has to be an array or a variety. But, alas, the schools that are "further away" aren't more 'diverse' than the schools closer in. They're just as lopsided -- but not with white kids.


Sheperd is not more "diverse" than Murch or Eaton or even Hearst -- Sheperd is more lopsided toward just one race actually than either Murch OR Eaton is. Sheperd is on par with Lafayette with its over-representation of one race vs. any other races.

It's not just about race when it comes to Shepherd. Shepherd is more diverse economically as well.

^^Bancoft, too. Bancroft has less variety in the student body than does Murch, Eaton or Hearst.

Shepherd is 94% non-white and Deal is 59% non-white. Removing any feeder school that is more diverse than Deal makes Deal less diverse.

This is the fundamental, unsolvable problem with redistricting Deal: the schools that are further away are more diverse.

While I agree with your point, generally, I quibble with your wording and I think it's important to correct. "Diverse" isn't synonymous with "not white." There has to be an array or a variety. But, alas, the schools that are "further away" aren't more 'diverse' than the schools closer in. They're just as lopsided -- but not with white kids.


Sheperd is not more "diverse" than Murch or Eaton or even Hearst -- Sheperd is more lopsided toward just one race actually than either Murch OR Eaton is. Sheperd is on par with Lafayette with its over-representation of one race vs. any other races.

There is no way Shepherd will be zoned out of Deal. I agree with PP, it would be political suicide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oyster can't really even hold its current preK-8 in the two campuses; it will need significant expansion to hold students for 4 more years; there is barely a playground, much less space for high school sports
also the financial issues with such a small class would mean they had few options for AP, etc...

No one is saying Oyster should be a HS. Rather that Oyster students stay there until 8th. The Shepherd, Lafayette, Murch, Janney and Hearst Boundary for Deal makes geographic sense--even with the Reno School expansion.

Oyster is not really physically equipped for middle school, and it doesn't have enough students to offer options AND be efficient. I can't see Bancroft parents being happy with Lincoln, new building or not...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oyster can't really even hold its current preK-8 in the two campuses; it will need significant expansion to hold students for 4 more years; there is barely a playground, much less space for high school sports
also the financial issues with such a small class would mean they had few options for AP, etc...

No one is saying Oyster should be a HS. Rather that Oyster students stay there until 8th. The Shepherd, Lafayette, Murch, Janney and Hearst Boundary for Deal makes geographic sense--even with the Reno School expansion.

If a school has to be zoned out of Deal, I don't see the logic of Shepard staying in. It's the most remote geographically from Deal, and east-west transit connections are not great.

This would be why ginormous SUVs are the transit connection for Shepard kids.

Anonymous wrote:
If a school has to be zoned out of Deal, I don't see the logic of Shepard staying in. It's the most remote geographically from Deal, and east-west transit connections are not great.

But Shepherd is 94% non-white and Deal is 59% non-white. Removing any feeder school that is more diverse than Deal makes Deal less diverse.

This is the fundamental, unsolvable problem with redistricting Deal: the schools that are further away are more diverse. Any redistricting that increases geographic compactness decreases diversity, and vice versa.

There is just no way around this.

Thanks for clarifying. I had heard they shared one principal and that the shared principal was located at Eaton.

Anonymous wrote:For many years, Hearst only went to 3rd grade. Then the students went to Eaton. They shared a principal. From what I hear, that didn't work so well.

Eaton parent here. Eaton and Heast were not managed as a common, integrated program. Any sharing of a principal was to share money and at the time the Eaton principal (a longtime desk warmer who left after the infamous "cat-neutering" clinic in the lunch room) couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag. Instead, Hearst kids were simply "fed" into Eaton, which at the time went all the way to grade 6, because by 4th grade a lot of Eaton kids were peeling off to independent schools. And because the Hearst kids were fed into a school where many other kids had been together through 3d grade there were adjustment issues. This changed as more Eaton kids stayed and "graduated" at the end of 5th grade.

For many years, Hearst only went to 3rd grade. Then the students went to Eaton. They shared a principal. From what I hear, that didn't work so well.

this is a good idea

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have any thoughts on OP's original question, which is whether Janney's boundaries would be redrawn? Would it be likely for Janney and/or Murch boundaries be shrunk and Hearst's expanded in light of Hearst's extremely low in-boundary admissions?"

Janney parent here. There has been talk of the boundaries being redrawn - I can't recall whether this is from the principal or Mary Cheh's office or both. But it has been part of the discussion for the past few years as the school has worked to address the huge growth in population. I don't think anyone has publicly stated how the boundaries could be changed, but I'm sure thought has going into that.

For a while, I've thought that a more sensible idea -- as renovated, expanded Janney is already over capacity -- would be to explore a pairing relationship with Hearst. Hearst is very close and their boundaries touch each other. Put the schools under common administration and have some grades clustered in the Janney building and others in a renovated Hearst building. Have a shuttle school bus go back and forth at pick up and drop-off to help families. I'm not sure which grades should be where, although Hearst has more expansive grounds and the Hearst field which might be more suitable for, say, grades 4-5. For a long time, Hearst was a school a bit in seach of a mission as it has the smallest percentage of neighborhood kids in Ward 3 (perhaps excepting Oyster, which is also twinned). Rather than shrinking Janney boundaries to deal with overcrowding, having a common program with Hearst would make sense.

But our house is. That's the way boundaries work. We are just inside the line for Hearst, and if you removed buildings we could see Deal from our house.

And if you removed some trees and buildings, I could see Russia from my front porch.