Brent rebuild details to know before you accept that lottery spot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

and no busses! think of the savings!

seriously, what's the argument against? People keep saying the PTA knows, but nobody has really said why? Is it a secret or something?

I think the argument against is the anticipated opposition to tearing up a neighborhood park to install a trailer city for 400+ kids/teachers/staff.

400+ kids/teachers/staff whose school district is offering them a real school building 3 miles away with busses to get there and back. Do you people hear yourselves?

I do, I hear myself wondering, "Garfield isn't an actual option and I don't understand why people won't identify one that might actually pan out instead of engaging in magical thinking." The argument isn't Meyer vs. Garfield; it's Meyer vs. finding something that the district will agree to use.

This is the thing. 1) Modernization needs to happen and people seem pretty much universally supportive of that. But, 2) Meyer is an unacceptable swing space.

It's not up to us to do site surveys. I think what many of us are saying is that DCPS needs to do better, because Meyer doesn't work.

Love the Eastern idea from the other PP. Any insights from anyone on why that wasn't addressed?

You love the idea of appropriating a predominantly African-American high school community's recreation space for use by your predominantly white elementary school community?

yeah that’s what will make this a better discussion - sjw posturing

fwiw I’ve never seen Eastern students using that field. maybe they use it for baseball practice. I’ve seen (white) dog walkers there and that’s it.

You might not care about the optics, but dcps absolutely will and that's why they won't take Eastern's field... especially not for Brent. Maybe, maybe, for another eastern feeder...but not for Brent.

I mean they “took” the EH field for Maury. I’ve literally never seen Eastern students on that field. On the tennis courts and football field, yes. Not the lower field.

[Anonymous]

The office space idea is a no-go -- it would cost too much to fit them to an elementary's needs. Including legal requirements, like ECE classrooms with bathrooms and sinks, SpEd facilities, etc. It's one thing to convert an office building to a permanent location as other schools have done (and notably, all charters, who have more leeway with facilities), but not for a two-year swing space.

You need one of the following: (1) existing vacant school, (2) a location to put existing DCPS trailers already designed for elementary use, (3) permanent swing space location, which do exist in various places in the city. DCPS will not approve any other swing space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

and no busses! think of the savings!

seriously, what's the argument against? People keep saying the PTA knows, but nobody has really said why? Is it a secret or something?

I think the argument against is the anticipated opposition to tearing up a neighborhood park to install a trailer city for 400+ kids/teachers/staff.

400+ kids/teachers/staff whose school district is offering them a real school building 3 miles away with busses to get there and back. Do you people hear yourselves?

I do, I hear myself wondering, "Garfield isn't an actual option and I don't understand why people won't identify one that might actually pan out instead of engaging in magical thinking." The argument isn't Meyer vs. Garfield; it's Meyer vs. finding something that the district will agree to use.

This is the thing. 1) Modernization needs to happen and people seem pretty much universally supportive of that. But, 2) Meyer is an unacceptable swing space.

It's not up to us to do site surveys. I think what many of us are saying is that DCPS needs to do better, because Meyer doesn't work.

Love the Eastern idea from the other PP. Any insights from anyone on why that wasn't addressed?

You love the idea of appropriating a predominantly African-American high school community's recreation space for use by your predominantly white elementary school community?

yeah that’s what will make this a better discussion - sjw posturing

fwiw I’ve never seen Eastern students using that field. maybe they use it for baseball practice. I’ve seen (white) dog walkers there and that’s it.

You might not care about the optics, but dcps absolutely will and that's why they won't take Eastern's field... especially not for Brent. Maybe, maybe, for another eastern feeder...but not for Brent.

I mean they “took” the EH field for Maury. I’ve literally never seen Eastern students on that field. On the tennis courts and football field, yes. Not the lower field.

There’s a softball game being played on the field right now. Maybe you’ve never seen the field being used because you’ve never spent any time there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is this hour bus ride coming from? It would take an hour to walk the three miles.

North Capitol during rush hour is among the worst traffic in the city. It legitimately took CHML ECEers 45 minutes+ every morning and CHML is on G St NE already! The afternoon commute isn’t as bad because it’s not also rush hour.

Could this not be solved by having the busses leave Brent earlier? Or would the early start be too much for the little snowflakes?

you're a jerk (but you know that already) but for others who are trying to understand the issue, it's worth addressing but there are two problems with this.

The biggest, and most expensive, is expanded hours for aftercare. Starting an hour earlier doesn't mean parents are off work an hour earlier, and all of the sudden they've got to pay for 30% more aftercare. Of course, DCPS nor Brent admin have addressed this yet.

Second, a 4 year old should not have to get up at 6am or whatever hour just because DCPS can't find the will to solve this problem more effectively. It's punative on some level, which is why people are upset.

Not OP here, honest question: Brent's aftercare is not hourly/is by the day and admin has already said there will be an aftercare bus. Why would it cost more?

Because it's longer. Adding an hour to aftercare adds an hour of costs.

Sorry: still don't get it. Aftercare charges by the day not by the hour, and if the bus is leaving an hour before aftercare ends now, isn't that less expensive/fewer hours anyway?

PP means before care. No way they could force all kids in the IB to pay for before care if that’s when the only buses arrived. Also, good luck getting enough staff for aftercare unless you’re going with a private provider, which will charge $$$. Much easier to get staff for aftercare than before care.

Even more confused now how this is more expensive. Brent already has a private provider; if buses are leaving when beforecare normally would start then there's no need for paying for beforecare; if they're leaving an hour before the current pickup time there's shorter aftercare hours not more. What am I missing?

This is all a chain in response to the suggestion to move the bus to an earlier time to avoid rush hour. So you have the kids picked up at 7 and they get to the school at 7:30… What then? School doesn’t start until 8:30. I’m having trouble seeing what you’re finding complicated to understand.

Ok but if the bus commute is an hour, kids leave at 7am and get to school at 8am, and checked into their classroom at 8:15. If school starts at 8:30 this seems to cut out the need for beforecare completely.

if kids need to be on the bus 90 minutes before school actually starts -- and likely leave their houses even earlier -- how in the world could this site have been chosen? this is insanity.

What, you mean like the people who have jobs that require them to drop off at the same time now because they have to go to work? Sorry that my work schedule is "insane" to you, I can send you the bill if you'd like to help out.

What bill? Kids ride free on the metro. Get a 5th grader to look after your PK3er and be done with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

and no busses! think of the savings!

seriously, what's the argument against? People keep saying the PTA knows, but nobody has really said why? Is it a secret or something?

I think the argument against is the anticipated opposition to tearing up a neighborhood park to install a trailer city for 400+ kids/teachers/staff.

400+ kids/teachers/staff whose school district is offering them a real school building 3 miles away with busses to get there and back. Do you people hear yourselves?

I do, I hear myself wondering, "Garfield isn't an actual option and I don't understand why people won't identify one that might actually pan out instead of engaging in magical thinking." The argument isn't Meyer vs. Garfield; it's Meyer vs. finding something that the district will agree to use.

This is the thing. 1) Modernization needs to happen and people seem pretty much universally supportive of that. But, 2) Meyer is an unacceptable swing space.

It's not up to us to do site surveys. I think what many of us are saying is that DCPS needs to do better, because Meyer doesn't work.

Love the Eastern idea from the other PP. Any insights from anyone on why that wasn't addressed?

You love the idea of appropriating a predominantly African-American high school community's recreation space for use by your predominantly white elementary school community?

yeah that’s what will make this a better discussion - sjw posturing

fwiw I’ve never seen Eastern students using that field. maybe they use it for baseball practice. I’ve seen (white) dog walkers there and that’s it.

You might not care about the optics, but dcps absolutely will and that's why they won't take Eastern's field... especially not for Brent. Maybe, maybe, for another eastern feeder...but not for Brent.

I mean they “took” the EH field for Maury. I’ve literally never seen Eastern students on that field. On the tennis courts and football field, yes. Not the lower field.

There’s a softball game being played on the field right now. Maybe you’ve never seen the field being used because you’ve never spent any time there?

+1. My kid has played baseball on that field. It definitely gets used.

[Anonymous]

Are there any other DCPS elementary schools that have big fields next to them where trailers could go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any other DCPS elementary schools that have big fields next to them where trailers could go?

Amidon. Unfortunately they aren’t getting traction on that. And amidon is further from their proposed swing space (also Meyer).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The office space idea is a no-go -- it would cost too much to fit them to an elementary's needs. Including legal requirements, like ECE classrooms with bathrooms and sinks, SpEd facilities, etc. It's one thing to convert an office building to a permanent location as other schools have done (and notably, all charters, who have more leeway with facilities), but not for a two-year swing space.

You need one of the following: (1) existing vacant school, (2) a location to put existing DCPS trailers already designed for elementary use, (3) permanent swing space location, which do exist in various places in the city. DCPS will not approve any other swing space.

If they can build a school with trailers I don’t see why they can’t convert an office space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The office space idea is a no-go -- it would cost too much to fit them to an elementary's needs. Including legal requirements, like ECE classrooms with bathrooms and sinks, SpEd facilities, etc. It's one thing to convert an office building to a permanent location as other schools have done (and notably, all charters, who have more leeway with facilities), but not for a two-year swing space.

You need one of the following: (1) existing vacant school, (2) a location to put existing DCPS trailers already designed for elementary use, (3) permanent swing space location, which do exist in various places in the city. DCPS will not approve any other swing space.

If they can build a school with trailers I don’t see why they can’t convert an office space.

The trailers are already equipped as classrooms. They aren't just generic trailers. There are companies that specialize in school trailers and they are designed to function as schools. DCPS owns some already that do not require any changes, just installation.

I went to 6th grade in trailers that were used for that purpose for 4 years while they built a new MS. They were really nice and had lockers, a small gym, and a science lab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The office space idea is a no-go -- it would cost too much to fit them to an elementary's needs. Including legal requirements, like ECE classrooms with bathrooms and sinks, SpEd facilities, etc. It's one thing to convert an office building to a permanent location as other schools have done (and notably, all charters, who have more leeway with facilities), but not for a two-year swing space.

You need one of the following: (1) existing vacant school, (2) a location to put existing DCPS trailers already designed for elementary use, (3) permanent swing space location, which do exist in various places in the city. DCPS will not approve any other swing space.

If they can build a school with trailers I don’t see why they can’t convert an office space.

The trailers are already equipped as classrooms. They aren't just generic trailers. There are companies that specialize in school trailers and they are designed to function as schools. DCPS owns some already that do not require any changes, just installation.

I went to 6th grade in trailers that were used for that purpose for 4 years while they built a new MS. They were really nice and had lockers, a small gym, and a science lab.

The fact that anyone thinks the trailers that get used as school spaces are like converted double-wides is an indication they are not qualified to weigh in on what can feasibly work as a school space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The office space idea is a no-go -- it would cost too much to fit them to an elementary's needs. Including legal requirements, like ECE classrooms with bathrooms and sinks, SpEd facilities, etc. It's one thing to convert an office building to a permanent location as other schools have done (and notably, all charters, who have more leeway with facilities), but not for a two-year swing space.

You need one of the following: (1) existing vacant school, (2) a location to put existing DCPS trailers already designed for elementary use, (3) permanent swing space location, which do exist in various places in the city. DCPS will not approve any other swing space.

If they can build a school with trailers I don’t see why they can’t convert an office space.

Seriously, it's not that hard. Office buildings are built to be configurable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any other DCPS elementary schools that have big fields next to them where trailers could go?

Amidon. Unfortunately they aren’t getting traction on that. And amidon is further from their proposed swing space (also Meyer).

Do you know why they aren’t getting traction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The office space idea is a no-go -- it would cost too much to fit them to an elementary's needs. Including legal requirements, like ECE classrooms with bathrooms and sinks, SpEd facilities, etc. It's one thing to convert an office building to a permanent location as other schools have done (and notably, all charters, who have more leeway with facilities), but not for a two-year swing space.

You need one of the following: (1) existing vacant school, (2) a location to put existing DCPS trailers already designed for elementary use, (3) permanent swing space location, which do exist in various places in the city. DCPS will not approve any other swing space.

If they can build a school with trailers I don’t see why they can’t convert an office space.

The trailers are already equipped as classrooms. They aren't just generic trailers. There are companies that specialize in school trailers and they are designed to function as schools. DCPS owns some already that do not require any changes, just installation.

I went to 6th grade in trailers that were used for that purpose for 4 years while they built a new MS. They were really nice and had lockers, a small gym, and a science lab.

The fact that anyone thinks the trailers that get used as school spaces are like converted double-wides is an indication they are not qualified to weigh in on what can feasibly work as a school space.

The trailers were literally just big rectangular rooms. Not really seeing the big deal here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The office space idea is a no-go -- it would cost too much to fit them to an elementary's needs. Including legal requirements, like ECE classrooms with bathrooms and sinks, SpEd facilities, etc. It's one thing to convert an office building to a permanent location as other schools have done (and notably, all charters, who have more leeway with facilities), but not for a two-year swing space.

You need one of the following: (1) existing vacant school, (2) a location to put existing DCPS trailers already designed for elementary use, (3) permanent swing space location, which do exist in various places in the city. DCPS will not approve any other swing space.

If they can build a school with trailers I don’t see why they can’t convert an office space.

Seriously, it's not that hard. Office buildings are built to be configurable.

Alexandria did it.

https://alexandrialivingmagazine.com/news/acps-office-building-school-conversion-west-end/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The office space idea is a no-go -- it would cost too much to fit them to an elementary's needs. Including legal requirements, like ECE classrooms with bathrooms and sinks, SpEd facilities, etc. It's one thing to convert an office building to a permanent location as other schools have done (and notably, all charters, who have more leeway with facilities), but not for a two-year swing space.

You need one of the following: (1) existing vacant school, (2) a location to put existing DCPS trailers already designed for elementary use, (3) permanent swing space location, which do exist in various places in the city. DCPS will not approve any other swing space.

If they can build a school with trailers I don’t see why they can’t convert an office space.

Seriously, it's not that hard. Office buildings are built to be configurable.

Alexandria did it.

https://alexandrialivingmagazine.com/news/acps-office-building-school-conversion-west-end/

They converted an office building to a permanent elementary school. That makes sense. It does not make sense to invest the money to convert offices to a temporary swing space, especially not when the district has other facilities available (whether trailers or the NE swing space or, yes, the Columbia Heights campus). DC is facing a big budget shortfall and converting an office building in Navy Yard for a two year use would be a huge waste of funds.