Low In Boundary at Hearst?

[Anonymous]

I think the Murch/Hearst thing is no big issue because Hearst is not really a worse school, but it seems related to the larger problem: now the Murch re zone people are crying "but Murch is only 3 blocks from my house" but if the DME middle school and high school choice set plans go through then some Hearst families will cry "but my house is only 20 blocks from Deal!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another problem with Hearst is the sudden and constant teacher turnover. A second grade teacher and her assistant left this month with hardly any warning. The school is on it's 4th nurse this year. Frankly there is an issue which needs to be addressed.

OMG, really? The school has ZERO control over the nurse, that is all controlled by the central office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Murch/Hearst thing is no big issue because Hearst is not really a worse school, but it seems related to the larger problem: now the Murch re zone people are crying "but Murch is only 3 blocks from my house" but if the DME middle school and high school choice set plans go through then some Hearst families will cry "but my house is only 20 blocks from Deal!"

I live in Hearst and my house is 9 blocks from Deal.

[Anonymous]

I leave in Hearst. In house east of CT Ave near van ness. It would take my kid 25 minutes a day roundtrip to walk and metro to Deal. It would take close to 2 hours r/t with multiple bus transfers to get to Hardy. I know because I did a test run. No way I'm subjecting my kid to that.

[Anonymous]

I don't have children in the school system yet, but the question for me is having walkable schools. Elementary students should be in boundary at schools that are blocks from their homes. It seems to me that a discussion of new boundaries should start with this consideration.

For example, a simple formula, such as if you live less than four blocks or half a mile from an elementary school in the city you are in boundary makes sense.

There is a compelling argument for walkability in the neighborhood schools petition.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/dc-residents-in-support-of-neighborhood-schools/signatures.html

"• Requiring many D.C. students and their families to have long commutes to school rather than allowing them to walk to their neighborhood public school, in some cases, just a block or two away (this will result in additional traffic congestion in a city that already has horrible traffic congestion, as well as create logistical nightmares for many single-parent and dual-working parent families). In the interest of creating a more sustainable city, the walkability of neighborhood schools should be maintained and considered if boundary lines are redrawn;"

[Anonymous]

I don't have children in the school system yet, but the question for me is having walkable schools. Elementary students should be in boundary at schools that are blocks from their homes. It seems to me that a discussion of new boundaries should start with this consideration.

For example, a simple formula, such as if you live less than four blocks or half a mile from an elementary school in the city you are in boundary makes sense.

There is a compelling argument for walkability in the neighborhood schools petition.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/dc-residents-in-support-of-neighborhood-schools/signatures.html

"• Requiring many D.C. students and their families to have long commutes to school rather than allowing them to walk to their neighborhood public school, in some cases, just a block or two away (this will result in additional traffic congestion in a city that already has horrible traffic congestion, as well as create logistical nightmares for many single-parent and dual-working parent families). In the interest of creating a more sustainable city, the walkability of neighborhood schools should be maintained and considered if boundary lines are redrawn;"

While I completely agree with this as a nice goal , one of the challenges we face is we are not starting from scratch and in the particular cases of Janney, Murch and Lafayette these schools' boundaries extend to the northern edge of DC which is significantly more than 4 blocks away. There would no way to achieve the goal you suggest without building at least one additional ES in Ward 3. Given the desperate needs across the system - eg no MS at all in Ward 4 - it is not realistic.





[

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Murch/Hearst thing is no big issue because Hearst is not really a worse school, but it seems related to the larger problem: now the Murch re zone people are crying "but Murch is only 3 blocks from my house" but if the DME middle school and high school choice set plans go through then some Hearst families will cry "but my house is only 20 blocks from Deal!"

I live in Hearst and my house is 9 blocks from Deal.

That is my point. If they can kick us out (3 blocks from Murch) the they can justify kicking us BOTH out of Deal. That is why the issues are related. It is the same advisory board doing both plans.

[Anonymous]

The reason that they are removing those geographic boundaries is because they are in the middle of all three schools. The schools are clustered. There are currently families zoned for Hearst that can walk to Murch and Janney. By your argument we should expand those boundaries to included them. But we cannot because of the geography that has to be served. Walkability is a great goal, but it is in tension with making the remainder of the boundaries make sense.

I do not think anyone is suggest moving Murch, Janney or Hearst out of boundary for deal except for in the choice sets or geographic based sets where it would be one of two choices.

I do not support those options but perhaps your time would be better spent advocating for a proximity filter within the choice sets so we do not get the ridiculous outcome that a family two blocks from a particular middle school is cut out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here and another Murch parent whose family is being proposed for rezoning to Hearst. We walk with our pre-k kid every day to and from school. The walk is easy and flat, and our two year old is even able to manage it. We have walked to Hearst to play, although my kids have never made it the whole walk without asking to get on shoulders or getting in a stroller. It's further and has some substantial hills. We would probably still walk most days, but we would definitely drive more frequently.

I'm not panicked about the proposed change in isolation. We can work with Hearst, although it is not our preference. My biggest reason for fighting the change is the possibility of what it would mean under a choice set scenario. While I can live with Hearst, I have zero interest in commuting to Eaton or Oyster.

Anyway, I have an open mind about Hearst and I will be attending the open house in the morning to confirm.

I will also say that it seems very unlikely that the border won't be moved north. Moving it all of the way to Chesapeake is silly. Albemarle makes more sense, but I have a clear bias as a family that is north of Albemarle.

I went to the open house and was very impressed. I'm really glad I went. The school seems to be very much on the right track and I would be surprised if it isn't considered on par with Janney and Murch in a number of years. Frankly, if I were a family with a child that hadn't attended Murch yet, I wouldn't be as worried about the boundary change. That said, I do still think it's silly for folks on Chesapeake to have to walk to a school so much further away from their home than Murch is.

Regardless, this chicken little, at least, has concluded that the sky is not, in fact, going to fall.

Thanks for your input. We are also in the possible switch zone, I appreciate that you went to investigate.

Hi there! I am an Hearst parent who was one of the hosts at the open house yesterday and I want to say thank you to the current Murch/ potential future rezone families who visited yesterday - it was great to meet you. Also specifically to the PP who took the time to share her positive impressions from the visit - we really appreciate that and are glad you feel that way.

Go Owls!!! (Sorry for the caffeine-fueled exuberance - we had our annual auction last night at the Austrian Embassy and it was a smashing success so we are enjoying a bit of post-event euphoria!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason that they are removing those geographic boundaries is because they are in the middle of all three schools. The schools are clustered. There are currently families zoned for Hearst that can walk to Murch and Janney. By your argument we should expand those boundaries to included them. But we cannot because of the geography that has to be served. Walkability is a great goal, but it is in tension with making the remainder of the boundaries make sense.

I do not think anyone is suggest moving Murch, Janney or Hearst out of boundary for deal except for in the choice sets or geographic based sets where it would be one of two choices.

I do not support those options but perhaps your time would be better spent advocating for a proximity filter within the choice sets so we do not get the ridiculous outcome that a family two blocks from a particular middle school is cut out.

Choice sets and lottery are likely to be halted by the next mayor, anyway I also oppose them now. But meanwhile I will oppose the rezone, which could happen even if choice sets are stopped. It's just dumb to deny families access to a school we can literally see from our house. (And, no, I am not Sarah Palin)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have children in the school system yet, but the question for me is having walkable schools. Elementary students should be in boundary at schools that are blocks from their homes. It seems to me that a discussion of new boundaries should start with this consideration.

For example, a simple formula, such as if you live less than four blocks or half a mile from an elementary school in the city you are in boundary makes sense.

There is a compelling argument for walkability in the neighborhood schools petition.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/dc-residents-in-support-of-neighborhood-schools/signatures.html

"• Requiring many D.C. students and their families to have long commutes to school rather than allowing them to walk to their neighborhood public school, in some cases, just a block or two away (this will result in additional traffic congestion in a city that already has horrible traffic congestion, as well as create logistical nightmares for many single-parent and dual-working parent families). In the interest of creating a more sustainable city, the walkability of neighborhood schools should be maintained and considered if boundary lines are redrawn;"

While I completely agree with this as a nice goal , one of the challenges we face is we are not starting from scratch and in the particular cases of Janney, Murch and Lafayette these schools' boundaries extend to the northern edge of DC which is significantly more than 4 blocks away. There would no way to achieve the goal you suggest without building at least one additional ES in Ward 3. Given the desperate needs across the system - eg no MS at all in Ward 4 - it is not realistic.





[

Then isn't the solution to overcrowding reduce OOB slots to phase out (not next year, but as kids work through the system) feeder patterns? It's just ridiculous that a kid won't be able to attend a nearby school just so OOB slots are maintained for political reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason that they are removing those geographic boundaries is because they are in the middle of all three schools. The schools are clustered. There are currently families zoned for Hearst that can walk to Murch and Janney. By your argument we should expand those boundaries to included them. But we cannot because of the geography that has to be served. Walkability is a great goal, but it is in tension with making the remainder of the boundaries make sense.

I do not think anyone is suggest moving Murch, Janney or Hearst out of boundary for deal except for in the choice sets or geographic based sets where it would be one of two choices.

I do not support those options but perhaps your time would be better spent advocating for a proximity filter within the choice sets so we do not get the ridiculous outcome that a family two blocks from a particular middle school is cut out.

Choice sets and lottery are likely to be halted by the next mayor, anyway I also oppose them now. But meanwhile I will oppose the rezone, which could happen even if choice sets are stopped. It's just dumb to deny families access to a school we can literally see from our house. (And, no, I am not Sarah Palin)

I don't like Sarah Palin but she proved remarkable prescient about Putin.

[Anonymous]

As a ward 3 parent I am getting a bit tired of hearing I can see it from my house/ it is two blocks from my house arguments. There is a larger picture of education needs in this city than just your family.

Providing feeder rights is a way to ensure that children that have benefited from the OOB lottery continue on a strong educational path with their elementary school peers. We need this in this city. It is equally compelling to me to providing sibling entrance to schools families have been zoned out of a particular school.

I am not an oyster parent/family, but I find the idea of their changed feeder to Cardozo much more disturbing because it it's academic achievement is so far below Wilson. THAT is unacceptable even though they cannot "see" Wilson from their front yards.

This is the kind of myopic thinking that makes the rest of the city dismiss ward 3 as completely self interested twits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a ward 3 parent I am getting a bit tired of hearing I can see it from my house/ it is two blocks from my house arguments. There is a larger picture of education needs in this city than just your family.

Providing feeder rights is a way to ensure that children that have benefited from the OOB lottery continue on a strong educational path with their elementary school peers. We need this in this city. It is equally compelling to me to providing sibling entrance to schools families have been zoned out of a particular school.

I am not an oyster parent/family, but I find the idea of their changed feeder to Cardozo much more disturbing because it it's academic achievement is so far below Wilson. THAT is unacceptable even though they cannot "see" Wilson from their front yards.

This is the kind of myopic thinking that makes the rest of the city dismiss ward 3 as completely self interested twits.

I hear your concern about giving feeder rights to OOB children to ensure a strong academic path for them, and offering sibling rights for similar reasons. I also agree it's frustrating for Oyster parents to be switched to a lower performing school. But where you lose me is your seeming lack of any comparable care for all those ward 3 (and ward 2 and ward 4) families who will will squeezed out of their in-bounds schools. Those children have just as much right to a good school, and perhaps more because their families invested in the neighborhoods where the schools are located.

The problem is that if you assume the only acceptable schools for anyone are the ones in ward3, there simply aren't enough acceptable schools for all he kids. We need more good schools, and the question we should all be asking ourselves is how best to create them ... not wasting time trying to make value judgments about which children are most deserving of spots in the few top performing schools we already have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a ward 3 parent I am getting a bit tired of hearing I can see it from my house/ it is two blocks from my house arguments. There is a larger picture of education needs in this city than just your family.

Providing feeder rights is a way to ensure that children that have benefited from the OOB lottery continue on a strong educational path with their elementary school peers. We need this in this city. It is equally compelling to me to providing sibling entrance to schools families have been zoned out of a particular school.

I am not an oyster parent/family, but I find the idea of their changed feeder to Cardozo much more disturbing because it it's academic achievement is so far below Wilson. THAT is unacceptable even though they cannot "see" Wilson from their front yards.

This is the kind of myopic thinking that makes the rest of the city dismiss ward 3 as completely self interested twits.

I hear your concern about giving feeder rights to OOB children to ensure a strong academic path for them, and offering sibling rights for similar reasons. I also agree it's frustrating for Oyster parents to be switched to a lower performing school. But where you lose me is your seeming lack of any comparable care for all those ward 3 (and ward 2 and ward 4) families who will will squeezed out of their in-bounds schools. Those children have just as much right to a good school, and perhaps more because their families invested in the neighborhoods where the schools are located.

The problem is that if you assume the only acceptable schools for anyone are the ones in ward3, there simply aren't enough acceptable schools for all he kids. We need more good schools, and the question we should all be asking ourselves is how best to create them ... not wasting time trying to make value judgments about which children are most deserving of spots in the few top performing schools we already have.

My point was directed at the families that are being rezoned to good schools (Hearst and Hyde) and that it is not even happening to these current complaining families.

Focus on the difference in quality of the options, not that you can see the school. Families that can see the school are no more entitled than families that cannot that are still in the boundary. There are families in the Hearst boundary TODAY that are closer to Janney than the majority of the Janney boundary. So what, parents throughout the Janney boundary are just as invested in the school. I do not think a boundary shift is necessary and I object to it, but I do not think proximity alone carries the day. I pails be equally supportive of any group being cut out of the Janney boundary, even if they, god forbid, drove to school.