Read the Advisory Committee Draft Proposal on New Boundaries for DC Public Schools

Photo by PoPville flickr user llahood

From the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education:

“Since last October, an Advisory Committee of parents, community members, and other experts have been working with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education to review student assignment policies, DCPS school boundaries, and feeder patterns. After months of work and community input, the Advisory Committee has developed a draft proposal for additional community discussion and feedback.

To get more information and share your feedback on these proposed changes, we invite you to:

Attend a community meeting
June 16th, 6 – 8PM, Savoy Elementary School, 2400 Shannon Place, SE
June 17th, 6 – 8PM, Dunbar High School, 101 N Street, NW
June 19th, 6 – 8PM, Takoma Education Campus, 7010 Piney Branch Road, NW

Provide testimony at Council of the District of Columbia public oversight roundtable on school boundaries on June 26, 2014 at 9AM. Call 202-724-8000 or e-mail [email protected] to sign up.

Complete a feedback form by July 21st ( OfficeFeedback Form Coming Soon!)
Email your concerns and questions to [email protected] or call 202-478-5738

Each DCPS school was provided with a letter and map outlining the proposed boundary changes for that school. To see the proposed boundary changes, by school, please click on the appropriate link below. The Washington Post has interactive maps that allow families to type in their address to view how the proposal could impact their elementary, middle, and high school rights.”

You can read the full report below:

Advisory Committee Draft Proposal and Boundaries – June 2014 (PDF)

56 Comment

  • It’s an interesting time to do this. On the one hand, it seems like a huge change for a lame duck mayor to be making. On the other hand, the process is guaranteed to anger lots of people. Maybe a lame duck is the only person who can actually get it done.
    I don’t know about the actual boundaries, but I think neighborhood schools are important, so I’m glad to see them continue in that direction.

    • Good points on the “lame duck” factor. He’s really the only one who can push it through, since he doesn’t have to worry about the political repercussions. I honestly can’t see Bowser staking a bold reform, since they’ll be so focused on getting re-elected.

  • Accountering

    I certainly don’t have a dog in this fight, as I am a long time from having a kid in DCPS, but I think the change in tightening up Wilson/Deal’s boundary is a good thing. This will put a lot more children from WOTP and nicer areas EOTP into Cardozo and McFarland etc. Hopefully that can push the transition of these schools into becoming more diverse schools and the improvement I think everyone hopes for. It sounds like Wilson and Deal will then accept 10% OOB, which gives everyone in the city a chance to get into these schools, as opposed to only being able to attend if you own a million dollar home. This seems like a win-win.

    This is a tough issue, as many will see it as being heavily based on race, when in reality, it is really just getting more kids with parents of means into these schools. Whether those kids be black, white, brown, or green.

    I do like the transition away from K-8 to just middle schools. My house is currently zoned for Truesdell, and I really wouldn’t be interested in my 6 year old going to school with kids twice his age. I think going back to an elementary, middle, and high school model will be an improvement for these education campuses.

    • There’s a problem with that. Changing boundaries without providing a quality option at MacFarland will only push people out of DCPS. The city needs to pony up some concrete ways to make MacFarland attractive or it will flop.
      It sounds like you’re in exactly the right place to get involved – before it’s an emergency. If there’s a good middle school option in your area, then your elementary school will attract many more people.

      • “The city needs to pony up some concrete ways to make MacFarland attractive or it will flop.”
        Well, for one, I think it will offer dual language immersion, in continuity for Powell and Bruce Monroe at Park View and whichever others. That is pretty awesome.

        • “I think it will offer dual language immersion, in continuity for Powell and Bruce Monroe at Park View and whichever others. That is pretty awesome.”

          Cool — English and Korean?

          I guess not, since something like 70% of kids at Powell speak Spanish. Even more awesome would be a DCPS EOTP that produces kids truly proficient in *one* language — maybe even standard English! — rather than functionally illiterate in two.

      • Accountering

        I completely agree. I am not saying just dump these kids into a crappy school. I am very much in favor of an all-of-the-above approach to improve our schools. McFarland needs to be turned into a terrific option, to keep these kids with choices in the system.

        The language immersion from below sounds pretty cool. Glad to see the money we are spending is at least creating programs and such that will help.

    • “I do like the transition away from K-8 to just middle schools. My house is currently zoned for Truesdell, and I really wouldn’t be interested in my 6 year old going to school with kids twice his age. I think going back to an elementary, middle, and high school model will be an improvement for these education campuses.”
      So agreed. Mixing much older kids with younger kids has been shown to be a terrible idea. My girlfriend attended such a school and had a terrible experience at the hands of older kids who were in 8th grade when she was in grades 4 to 6 (e.g. attempted sexual assaults, bullying, fights, etc).
      Middle school kids who are hitting puberty – especially those kids who come from broken homes/dysfunctional backgrounds – really shouldn’t be around elementary school children, IMHO.

    • While not a perfect example, it might be helpful to look at Ross Elementary. Ross feeds into the new combined Cardozo education campus and before that it fed into Shaw Middle, and in the proposed plan it will feed into this mystical/yet-to-be-built Center City Middle School, which is really just Shaw after a branding makeover. Over the past 5 or 6 years, only 1 student followed that track. Every other student has gone to charters/private schools or moved into Deal’s boundary or to the suburbs. In fact, most of them are leaving before 5th grade so as to not be stuck with no options, leaving 5th grade enrollment in the single digits. There’s very little chance that parents who had set their sights on Deal and then Wilson will settle for Cardozo, no matter how many bells and whistles DCPS promises — especially when they’ve seen DCPS issue false promise after false promise on lots of other issues.

  • Overall, I think this new proposal is a lot less contentious than the one put out in April. The controversial “choice set” issue has been removed, and families will now have an in-boundary right to attend school at every level.

    The proposal provides for a 10% set-aside in good schools (those where the majority of eligible in-boundary students attend) to go to out-of-boundary students, particularly students “at-risk”. This allows for more seats in good schools to go to out-of-boundary students who don’t have access to such a good school in their area.

    In some areas, particularly Crestwood and Petworth, they did redraw the boundaries quite a bit from the proposed changes in April. Crestwood families lose access to Deal MS and Wilson HS, which will upset them quite a bit. They now will go to Powell for Elementary, then to a reopened McFarland for MS, and finally to Roosevelt. Many Petworth families previously zoned for the rapidly improving Powell will now be zoned into either Barnard ES or Bruce Monroe ES.

    • Though, they really are cherry picking with Mt. Pleasant. I thought that they should have gone EoTP with their set for Mt. Pleasant. The HS map pulling Mt. Pleasant into Deal/Wilson looks like a gerrymandered Congressional map out of Texas, lol.
      Pulling Mt. Pleasant into Cardozo would have also greatly increased the pressure for Cardozo to improve standards and become “The Next Wilson.” I think this was a major lost opportunity.
      TBH, the “reforms” don’t really change all that much about the current system in terms of NW DC.

      • Cardozo is not likely to start pulling in kids from the million dollar homes in MtP with a slogan like “Home of the Clerks.”

        • I’d imagine “the Clerks” is a reference to Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, not to store clerks.

          • No, it’s actually not. It’s named after Francis Cardozo, who started a school with a business curriculum for African Americans when DC schools were segregated. They trained people to become clerks, among other business positions.

          • Interesting! I had no idea.
            I was just reading up on Francis Cardozo (1836-1903) on Wikipedia ( )… apparently he was the son of a free black woman and a Portuguese Jewish man, and was a distant relative of the Supreme Court Justice (who lived from 1870 to 1938). And his granddaughter married Paul Robeson!

          • Just to clarify, the school is named after Francis Cardozo, but this is not the school he started. This school was originally called Central HS, and was whites-only prior to desegregation. It was renamed to Cardozo sometime after that.

        • LOL, I agree that it is a lame name. But it’s also somewhat appropriate for a school that wants to have academics – rather than athletics – be the focus.
          But the school is brand new – the renovations are awesome. This really is an opportunity to do a total re-boot for Cardozo – new facilities, new technology, a new set of high caliber teachers, and a more diverse student body. I think it would have greatly benefited to have the deeply engaged high SES parents of Mount Pleasant scoped into the school. Their money and pressure would have helped keep the school on track.

    • “Many Petworth families previously zoned for the rapidly improving Powell will now be zoned into either Barnard ES or Bruce Monroe ES.”
      I don’t think that is correct. as far as Bruce Monroe goes. Look at their proposed boundary maps. Who would be going from Powell to Bruce Monroe at Park View?

      I wish they would finally fix the maps and numbers for Bruce Monroe at Park View, though. The “current” map isn’t current at all, as it shows the Bruce Monroe boundary before it got put together with Park View in the Park View School location. It’s likely that the “current” figures have the same mistake. So it’s impossible to tell what the real changes would be, in enrollment and population served.

      I’m excited about a brand new McFarland middle school. My kids are many years away from middle school, but I hope we can work to make it great by then.

      I’d like to know (maybe it’s in there somewhere) what the criteria for the 10% OOB set-aside will be. Some schools in the area, even if fully populated by inbound students, will probably still already have 30% or more of disadvantaged students, and I don’t think it would do much good to anyone to artificially increase it by 10%.

      • Sounds like you know more than me. My 1-year old daughter is still 2+ years away from PK3, so I’m still learning. In any case, I was comparing the April boundary proposal to the new boundary proposal. A big chunk of Petworth (in the triangle between Kansas, Illinois, and Upshur) that had been proposed to be zoned for Powell will now be zoned for Barnard. It does like like folks between Taylor and Upshur which had been in Powell’s proposed zone from April will now be in Bruce Monroe Zone. In any case, I’m in the Bernard zone in all cases, and hope that now that even greater Petworth population is zoned for Bernard that more folks, including myself, will work together to do what we can, as parents, to further improve the school.

        • +1.

          In the original proposal, they were moving us out of the current boundary for Barnard (to a much lower-quality school that is not in our neighborhood). After that proposal was released I attended meetings, contacted officials (wrote emails, made phone calls) to communicate how disruptive that change would be for my family and in these revised proposals we are back in-bounds for Barnard (a school that is safely walkable from my house).

          I am really excited to get involved in my neighborhood elementary school (my daughter is to begin pre-k 3 in Fall 2015). I’m also really excited/hopeful about the new MacFarland. Although we are a ways off from middle school, I’m confident that if we all work together and put our positive efforts into these schools we can make them into fantastic places for our kids.

          I also have to say that I am very encouraged by the fact that the DME and others are listening to residents’/parents’ feedback.

        • Ah, my bad. I was trying to compare this proposal to existing boundaries, and you were comparing them to the previous proposal.

          • “Many Petworth families previously zoned for the rapidly improving Powell will now be zoned into either Barnard ES or Bruce Monroe ES.”

            This comment is actually correct with the current boundaries if I was to enroll my child today. The “current boundary lines” in the materials released are actually not transparent. Many of us in this Petworth triangle (east of Georgia Ave, north of the metro, south of Grant circle and west of the Old Soldier’s Home) are currently in the old Clark zone. Clark elementary school was closed and is now home to El Haynes elementary and high school. When Clark was closed, all families in this zone were given the right to attend either Raymond elementary or Powell elementary. This will no longer be the case and is upsetting to me. The fact that the materials put out by DC misrepresents the families affected by this change is disingenious and needs to be corrected. Otherwise, families will not know that their current in boundary school (Powell or Raymond) is proposed to be changed. This is especially concerning to me since we are closer in proximity to Powell than Barnard. The momentum and parental involvement in Powell was getting me excited for this to be our neighborhood school. Not as excited for the proposal to send us to Barnard.

        • Unless I am reading this wrong, I do not see a greater Petworth population zoned for Barnard – – instead the lines have moved North and include significantly more of Brightwood then Petworth proper (and I have no problem with that, just noting it). Admitedly the boundaries of Petworth/Brightwood are still debated to that may be the issue – if you view Kennedy as the boundary, then yes proposed Barnard is mostly Petworth. If you view Emerson/Farrugut as the boundary – which in my experience most Petworthians do ( I am constantly told I am “North Petworth borderline Brightwood ha) then Barnard is now mostly Brightwood.

          And just a quick comment on Barnard – we brought our home adjacent to Barnard on purpose. While its support community has not been as vocal as Powell, my understanding from both people and online research is that Barnard is considered a very good DC elementary school already. And we too are excited to make it even better.

  • Did I read correctly that preschool students who are in-bounds for Title I schools would be able to attend their neighborhood school as a matter of right, instead of through the lottery? That would be sweet, but maybe not for the intended reasons. Five of those schools are on Capitol Hill/H Street neighborhood (Ludlow Taylor, Tyler, Miner, Payne, and JO Wilson). Many of the Capitol Hill babies who would benefit from the right to attend their neighborhood school for preK3 and preK4 are more affluent than the older students who give the school Title 1 status.

    • Oh, and Watkins is a “Targeted Assistance Title I School.” If it were included as a “school of right” for pre-k, that would cover most of the Hill. I think Maury and Brent are the only two Capitol Hill neighborhood elementary schools that are not on the Title 1 list.

  • I was trying to check out the maps but can’t, because the Washington Post chose to put it on (rather than and my work blocks .st. Aaaargh.
    I wish the Post would stop using shortened URLs except in cases where they’re actually necessary, like tweets.

  • Does anyone have anything to say about Raymond? We are inbound for Raymond (baby on the way) but I never see any posts about the school.

  • A lot of the comments above strike me as naive. “This will put a lot more children from WOTP and nicer areas EOTP into Cardozo and McFarland etc.” “Pulling Mt. Pleasant into Cardozo would have also greatly increased the pressure for Cardozo to improve standards and become “The Next Wilson.” I think this was a major lost opportunity.” “I think it would have greatly benefited to have the deeply engaged high SES parents of Mount Pleasant scoped into the school. Their money and pressure would have helped keep the school on track.”
    Those are fantastic theories that more often than not do not come to pass. As someone else pointed out, most of the the people in the million dollar homes aren’t going to send their kids to Cardozo. Just like most of the people in the million dollar homes in Crestwood won’t send their kids to MacFarland or Cardozo. We have neighbors who are looking to move to Crestwood because they realy liked the idea of Deal/Wilson as a backup to their (excellent) charter. But a million dollar home + (uncertain private options OR $$$ for private) is tough to swallow.
    Our daughter is at a charter that is highly regarded, and has been excellent. But every year, at least one or two families who are real assets to the school leave. Some just leave the area, but just as often, the parents look down the road and, because they aren’t sure if the school quality will hold, they fine a more stable option, be it a Deal/Wilson feeder, suburbs, or private. And these are parents who, for the most part, really like their current school. You think parents who don’t have an attachment to a new, untested school that, rightly or wrongly, will be preceived as a significant downgrade from their prior option will have any hesitation to fine another option? That’s just not realistic.

    • Accountering

      That’s fine that it strikes you as naive. I don’t think it is, even with the logic presented. The kinds of changes we are hoping to see take time. In this case, likely a LOT of time. If Cardozo can improve incrementally, then more and more kids of the in-bounds will go to it, and then you do start to see some of the kids from the million dollar homes going to it.

      It certainly isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but I think we can all be realistic here and know that for Cardozo to become an actual quality school will likely take a decade (or more..)

      This redistricting (IMHO) helps that process along.

      • I get it, and I hope you’re right. And I think you are correct that it’s the only way to really improve DCPS over the long term. But part of the problem is that the change doesn’t start at the high school level, or even middle school – it starts at the elementary level. Deal didn’t become a good option on its own, it became a good option after its feeders became great schools. Heck, there’s a large cohort of parents, even now, who think Deal is fine, but won’t send their kids to Wilson. Before Cardozo can really begin to improve, lots of sine qua non have to occur.
        Separate and apart from that, there’s a huge, and dispositive difference – Wilson feeders comprise the vast majority of really high SES areas in the city. Sure, there are pockets elsewhere – the Hill, Crestwood, 16th St. Heights – but nowhere near the concentrated wealth that feeds into Wilson. And no matter how quickly gentrification proceeds, Cardozo’s not going to have that advantage any time soon. The biggest barrier to improving DCPS is the economic segregation in DC. There’s nothing the DME (for whom I have great respect) can do to alleviate that.

        I didn’t mean to offend with the naive comment, and I hope I didn’t. I know I always hate when people say this, so I apologize in advance. The theories are great, and really make sense when you have no tangible stake in the outcome. I still believe in the theories, and hope they bear fruit. And there definitely are some families who are willing to stay and try to make them work – they’re truly impressive. But most people don’t think that way – they’re too risk averse, especially when it comes to their kids. And so, if they have other options, they avail themselves of them. It’s easy to say, “things will change only when people dig in, do that hard work and fight for it.” When you’re staring at uncontrollable classes filled with a majority of kids who have no interest in learning, whose parents have no focus on education, and contemplating how much better off your kid – right then, at that moment – would be in a different environment, it’s a different thought process altogether.
        Like I said, I used to hate it when people told me I didn’t truly understand because I wasn’t in the situation – I still do, and it doesn’t mean that my opinion is any more valid than anyone elses. But I’ve seen the scenario play out too many times, talked with too many other parents, and looked at too many houses in Bethesda to believe that it’ll this will be any different.

        • Accountering

          I certainly appreciate your perspective and approach. Lot of meat in there, and let me just say first I agree with most everything you said.

          Change certainly starts at the elementary level, and through to middle and then high school. I do think most important is to try and turn McFarland into a quality MS option. It seems like some of the surrounding elementary schools are changing quickly (Powell, Barnard, etc) so hopefully McFarland can draw those graduates, at some point.

          I do think we are starting to reach a point where there IS some concentrated wealth in Petworth. Every habitable house that sells is $500k+, with many into the 700s and 800s.

          I agree on a micro scale. Plenty of high SES parents will leave. The change is that not EVERY high SES parent will leave. That is the current situation at Cardozo.

          I certainly wasn’t offended in the least. Was just pushing back a bit in that I don’t think I am. I feel I understand the situation reasonably well, and understand the challenges we face as a city in fixing this problem. I do feel hopeful for the situation, and every year a brand new class of PK-3 students starts out, and every year that class is filled with increasing numbers for high SES children.

          Long-term, I am quite bullish on DC schools. I just don’t see how we do not see continued incremental improvement over the next decade or so (and further, if the gentrification and return of wealthy people to cities continues)

      • “If Cardozo can improve incrementally…” For that to happen, parents of higher-achieving students would have to agree to send their kids to Cardozo while it’s still a terrible school. Not going to happen.

        • Accountering

          Your comment makes no sense. Of course they will. That is how incremental progress works. Charters are full or unavailable, and slowly people start sending their kids to McFarland (much like happened at Deal, and the MS on Capital Hill) and then in 5 more years, some of them start sending them to Cardozo.

          I am not saying that next year, the rich white lawyers kid in Mt P is going to Cardozo, but overtime, that is how a school improves. Every year, you get slightly higher performing kids in, and boom, the school improves slowly.

          • I think what Anon is saying is that for that to happen, higher SES parents will need to decide that they’re willing to be “pioneers” (or have their kids be pioneers).
            I don’t have a stake in this fight — no kids, and no plans to have them — but if I did, I’m not sure I’d want for my kid(s) to be pioneers at the middle school or high school level. (I think parents are more willing to pioneer it at the elementary-school level.)

          • Talk about making no sense. How, exactly is Cardozo going to improve incrementally if “the rich white lawyers kid in Mt P” doesn’t go? Magic?

      • The problem is that it’s hard to improve a high school incrementally. You see this in New York: no one wants to be the first person to send their kid to a tough middle or high school, because they are (unfortunately correctly) afraid that the peer group will derail their kid’s education, and/or of actual physical danger. So they send their kids to public elementary school, and then if they don’t get into one of the exam schools, it’s off to private school or the suburbs.

        It’s a lot easier to get a group of parents together to improve an elementary school; it doesn’t matter as much, the problem kids are less disruptive and a lot easier to control, and your kids don’t get to make many decisions yet. But by the time they’re in middle school, you want them surrounded by a group of kids who aren’t a) dangerous b) disruptive c) likely to convince your kid that it’s cool to act up and drop out.

        • And this is exactly why any plan that relies on middle and upper class families to take a leap of faith at the middle and high school level will fail. I have 2 kids in a DCPS elementary school and I can tell you that not a single parent in either class plans on sending his or kid to the middle and high school that this school feeds into (Cardozo). In fact, in the 5 years I’ve been a parent at this school I haven’t spoken with *anyone* who plans on doing so — and this is unanimous across racial and socioeconomic lines. I also served on an ad hoc committee looking for a solution to this problem and the stock DCPS response has always been “But you should see the new building! It’s beautiful.” Either they’re incredibly naive or incredibly cynical — I can’t decide. Possibly naive in thinking that a new building will take care of everything, or possibly cynical in knowing that this isn’t the case but thinking that this is all they have to say to get out of the conversation. Either way, the result’s the same.

    • Some will flee, but many will also stay. I think it comes down to looking at the trends – people are wanting to stay in the urban center, rather than fleeing to the ‘burbs and all the problems that entails (long commutes, lack of time with family, less walk-ability, etc). Young families are actively making this choice and sticking it out. They’ve done a great job improving “untested” elementaries and charters. And now they’re going to take those efforts into the middle and high schools.
      The private schools are only going to become more exclusive and expensive as time marches on, as they don’t have room to expand. Even people with $1 million houses won’t be able to get into many of the privates – they won’t have the financial resources. Also, many folks with $1 million houses have those because of appreciation; it’s not like their suddenly have a lot more cash flow. They just timed the market correctly. People will quite literally be forced to go to an “untested” school, like Cardozo. It’s either that or completely leave DC. And I don’t see that happening.

      • “Young families are actively making this choice and sticking it out.”
        Young families with elementary school kids have absolutely made this choice. And those who (i) had access to Deal, or (ii) have/had access to a good charter middle school option (Latin, ELH, Basis, Cap City) also have made this choice. But those options are at capacity, and the real question is whether families who can’t access them will continue to stick it out. I predict that multiple charter middle schools will be proposed to address this need – hell, DCI has been hailed as a savior, one of the best middle schools in the city, and it hasn’t opened its doors yet. (That’s nuts, by the way.)
        As for the theory that people will be forced into low-performing options, and then those options will improve – we’ll see. I think more people will move than you think. The experience in San Francicso certainly doesn’t give any reason for optimism (although I recognize that’s a different set of circumstances). Once again, it’s easy to say, “I want to stay in the city, so I’ll send my kid to a crappy middle school and high school – maybe we can make it better for future generations!” Actually putting your kid in a sub-optimal situation when you have a choice, even if it’s not one that you’d prefer, is tougher to do. I don’t want to leave DC. I like walking running/biking to work, walking to 2 different farmer’s markets on the weekend, rarely driving, being involved in an urban community – but my preferences aren’t the most important consideration anymore.

      • What you’re predicting won’t happen is in fact happening right now. Some good private schools are already $30K/year, which is out of reach for most families, and the best charters are full. However, higher SES families are leaving the DCPS system after 5th grade in droves, either by going to charter/private schools if they can get in and/or pay for it or by moving altogether. As someone pointed out elsewhere, parents are willing to take risks at the elementary level that they’re not willing to take at the middle and high school levels. I’ve attended dozens of meetings with other parents and with DCPS, and the unwillingness of DCPS to understand that basic fact is just baffling.

  • A small group of significant winners here are those on my favorite street in Mt. Pleasant – Hobart – who were redistricted into Bancroft/Deal/Wilson from Cooke, etc. It makes all the sense in the world, but that was some fine lobbying work/arm twisting to get put INTO the Deal feeder pattern when whole neighborhoods (Crestwood) and schools (Eaton) were taken out.

    • It would be interesting to see how many Mt. Pleasant residents were on the boundary line committee. Mt. P appears to have made out like a bandit. Also, those east of 17th in Mt. P now got pulled into Deal. Pretty nuts.

      • I don’t know the answer to your question, but based on emails to the Mt Pleasant parent listserves, I got the impression that there was a HUGE lobbying effort underway to maintain access to Deal and Wilson for the entire Mt Pleasant neighborhood. One of the lobbying points, interestingly enough, was leaning hard on the large Hispanic population in the neighborhood and that its inclusion would improve diversity at Deal and Wilson.

        • Accountering

          Genius move to lobby on the diversity aspect. Bravo to Mt P.

          I wonder too if the fact that Mt P has one of the easiest/lease congested access to WOTP had any impact? Klingle to Porter is pretty solid, and you are on Connecticut pretty quickly.

          • I get the feeling (this is just speculation) that between Crestwood and Mt. Pleasant/Bancroft, one of them was going to lose access to Deal. I agree that emphasizing the diversity aspect was very smart. I think access is about the same – if you cut down Blagden to Beach to Tilden, you’re in Cleveland Park in 5 minutes from Crestwood.
            But as good a job as they did maintaining current access levels to Deal, increasing acces for Hobart was just extraordinary. There is no diversity argument to be made for that small subset, unless you’re running short of affluent white families.

          • Accountering

            I saw this coming as well. There was no way that the Wilson/Deal boundaries were going to shrink, and it was going to be EOTP that got left out.

            Blagden can have pretty bad traffic in the morning through the park. So perhaps that was a consideration?

          • Accountering

            *were not going to shrink

      • I don’t think it was a presence on the committee that made a difference, especially because committee members were randomly assigned to different sub-committees. Rather, this was probably the result of an organized and concerted lobbying effort to ensure MtP stays where it is.

        Some might cry foul, but this is what happens when parents get involved in their children’s education. Parents in other parts of the city need to do the same.

        • Well, when you can beat the drum of diversity it’s somewhat easier. As mtpresident pointed out, one of the the talking points was access of Hispanic students to Deal/Wilson. Many people who have been paying attention to the boundary/feeder issue for years have speculated that DCPS would keep Bancroft in the Deal/Wilson pattern as a defensive measure against claims of discrimination. Other groups of parents have fought just as hard but have been ignored by DCPS and their so-called representatives on the Advisory Committee.

  • I feel like Bloomingdale is being sacrificed in an attempt to gentrify NE. There’s no way I’m sending my kids to Langley. If this plan goes through I guess our hopes of being a part of the public school system (when we were previously zoned for Seaton or Cleveland) are out the window. Bummer. Guess there are winners and losers and we lose.

    • Unfortunately, there are winners and losers. The hope is that the changes lay the foundation for those who ostensibly “lost” to build and create a winning situation. And hey, you’re in good company – Cleveland Park and Crestwood took it in the shorts as well. Sorry, I know that’s cold comfort.

      • Well, we’re going to go to a community meeting to make our opinions heard. Most importantly, this feels like it isolates Bloomingdale from any of the community around it, like LeDroit Park and Shaw, and forces preschool children to cross North Capitol Street for our supposed “neighborhood school”. It makes no sense. Not that I expect our opinions to change anything.

Comments are closed.