Mayor Bowser Asks for School Funds Reprogramming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much for "Deal for All"

That campaign slogan itself should have done her in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. There has been huge, vocal neighborhood support and buy-in in the early years for several years. The families enter and work hard to make it a strong school, like your friends are likely doing now. DCPS throws them a bone, they work harder, DCPS steals the bone, the kids get older, the parents realize DCPS is not going to create a better path for after early ed, the parents move their kids, new toddlers enter and the cycle repeats. The idea that neighborhood but-in turns the school around is patently false in DCPS. It is believed only by those who have small children and haven't watched the cycle repeat.

Garrison isn't even our IB school, but I'm concerned about the amount of BS it seems to get from DCPS. Given it's location in a diverse area, neighbor support, Ward 2 ed coalition, proximity to transportation, specialized Autism program, and the size of the field, why does it seem to repeatedly get the short end of the DCPS stick? Seems like a no-brainer to put money into a backup engine for a boat that's ready to set sail.

What gives? How can non-Garrison boundary folks help?

[Anonymous]

I think they are holding on to Garrison until they can put a charter in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they are holding on to Garrison until they can put a charter in there.

There's no way the neighborhood would support a "non-neighborhood" school there. Rumor I hear is that it might be part of a landswap with Akridge in place of Reeves center. After all it's 6 acres in the middle of Logan Circle, how many 100 boutique condos could go up here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whoa, taken from Murch and given to Janney. That won't sit well.

Calm down, Janney is getting about $700k out of the $5million that is being taken from Murch. Also, I may help to read the memo that the OP linked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are holding on to Garrison until they can put a charter in there.

There's no way the neighborhood would support a "non-neighborhood" school there. Rumor I hear is that it might be part of a landswap with Akridge in place of Reeves center. After all it's 6 acres in the middle of Logan Circle, how many 100 boutique condos could go up here?

This is false. There is no way that would fly politically, swapping a shcool for condos without a competitive bidding process. Don't know about a charter but I know for sure its not part of the Land deal swap for soccer/akridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are holding on to Garrison until they can put a charter in there.

There's no way the neighborhood would support a "non-neighborhood" school there. Rumor I hear is that it might be part of a landswap with Akridge in place of Reeves center. After all it's 6 acres in the middle of Logan Circle, how many 100 boutique condos could go up here?

This is false. There is no way that would fly politically, swapping a shcool for condos without a competitive bidding process. Don't know about a charter but I know for sure its not part of the Land deal swap for soccer/akridge.

I don't know anything about the specific rumor, but you're naive about the politics. It's not at all uncommon for DCPS land to be seen as a plum to be given away. I used to live near Garrison, and I remember during the Williams administration a controversy because the playing field at Garrison was being used for parking by a neighborhood church, making it unusable as a field. It was clear from dealing with the city that providing parking opportunities for suburban church-goers was more important than play opportunities for DC kids.

[Anonymous]

Link to actual document in case anyone (like me) is banned from using Gmail, Google Drive, or Scribd at the office: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/33269/REPROG21-0004-Introduction.pdf

[Anonymous]

Our family doesn't attend Murch and won't be, but I've toured it and it is in dire need of a renovation. I can't help but to think that yanking money from Murch is retaliation for the community being so up-in-arms about the prospect of its boundaries changing. I hope not...but how can Murch lose it's renovation after so many stalls when the Chancellor is planning to spend $20Million on a new HS for boys?

[Anonymous]

of color. Boys of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our family doesn't attend Murch and won't be, but I've toured it and it is in dire need of a renovation. I can't help but to think that yanking money from Murch is retaliation for the community being so up-in-arms about the prospect of its boundaries changing. I hope not...but how can Murch lose it's renovation after so many stalls when the Chancellor is planning to spend $20Million on a new HS for boys?

Murch is not losing its renovation.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile at my Ward 7 school, we can't even get heat!
District of Corruption!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile at my Ward 7 school, we can't even get heat!
District of Corruption!

Wish we could send some of ours -- the kids have to wear shorts in winter and drink tons of water.