Proposal is up!

[Anonymous]

Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless I'm mistaken by my cursory first review, I see the demise of almost all the PS-8 Education Campuses, which I think is a good thing.

Why is that a good thing? I'm not being sarcastic, I really would like to know what I'm missing. Oyster-Adams is still a Pk-8th EC and it seems to get better every year.

The ECs are terrible. Most of them have none of the options and extracurricular that make middle school valuable. There just aren't enough kids at any one of them to be able to afford the staffing and facilities. Meanwhile, Deal has EVERYTHING. Separate and totally unequal.

This.
23:37 here and you said it SO much better than I did.

[Anonymous]

Because the Ward 3 schools are not really overcrowded. They keep getting resources to expand and then are able to meet IB demand with the subsequent expansion, but more importantly they add new optional programming outlined in 00:52.

The plea of "overcrowding" is a resource mobilization strategy that has been working for decades. If you look at the historical documentation the DME provided you will see that Janney has been called "overcrowded" practically since it opened. How else can the city justify concentrating resources in this one school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

They got crucified for the tiny W3 changed they suggested...why would they go down that route again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Janney was overcapacity the day it opened after renovation?

That is why it is being renovated again right now. The new second floor addition will be ready for the Fall. Increasing capacity was the justification for the second renovation and there are more slots available as a result, pre-K 4 optional seats were significantly expanded for 2014. Murch is preparing for a major expansion as part of the modernization process. Two "bins" have been contracted and a 750+ school is being envisioned by the Murch principal. Hearst is fully utilized with a new optional pre-K 3 program, one of the first in Ward 3. Lafayette is expecting a decrease in enrollment.

Ward 3 overcrowding is a bit of an urban legend and/or will soon be resolved with the Murch modernization.

DCPS insiders say that the enrollment numbers will likely continue to decrease. DCPS may actually be accelerating this process with this boundary exercise that is scaring young parents. I know several over the last few months who moved straight to Bethesda, skipping DCPS for elementary. We thought we could at least handle the early years in DCPS, but I am not sure if we have the stomach for it anymore.

Tell that to the trailers at Key. Tell that to the 80+ inboundary families at Stoddert waitlisted for pre-K.

[Anonymous]

Because it opens the entire process up to criticism that the elite (mostly white) population living in Ward 3 continues to play by its own set of rules. Smaller boundaries would mean the possibility of adding PK3 classes, which in turn would open up seats at JKLMM for OOB and at risk three-year old students.

[Anonymous]

What happens to the kids zoned for the new center city ms until it is built? Cardozo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sibling preference language sounds fuzzy to me. It says "Starting in 2015-16, students and their siblings who have been enrolled in their in-boundary
school, but have been re-zoned to another school, shall maintain in-boundary rights, at their
current in-boundary school until they complete that school"."

Does this mean the sibling needs to be enrolled in the in-boundary school, or only the older student and the sibling is grandfathered?

The older student and the sibling have to have been enrolled. So if there's student who has a sibling and the sibling does not already attend the school, only the older sibling can complete that school. Un-enrolled younger sib is screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sibling preference language sounds fuzzy to me. It says "Starting in 2015-16, students and their siblings who have been enrolled in their in-boundary
school, but have been re-zoned to another school, shall maintain in-boundary rights, at their
current in-boundary school until they complete that school"."

Does this mean the sibling needs to be enrolled in the in-boundary school, or only the older student and the sibling is grandfathered?

The older student and the sibling have to have been enrolled. So if there's student who has a sibling and the sibling does not already attend the school, only the older sibling can complete that school. Un-enrolled younger sib is screwed.

Wrong. Sibling gets in as long as older sibling is currently enrolled. They're trying to keep siblings at the same school, where possible.

But if a student leaves Deal at 8th grade before their sibling reaches 6th, the younger sibling must go to the newly zoned school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

They got crucified for the tiny W3 changed they suggested...why would they go down that route again?

Look at the Washington Post map. They did it again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Ward 3 and other popular schools are going to have to get rid of PK or severely limit it in order to make room for the OOB set-aside.

Limiting p-K doesn't help, all those kids are coming in K anyway. Fitting in another pre K classroom does not impact the number of seats you need to get all the IB kids plus the set asides through 5th. I don't think fully enrolled ward 3 schools need preK3. That said, with the renovations the schools have quite a bit of capacity.

There is language in the proposal allowing DCPS to revisit the boundary issues at Janney and Murch in a few years. So the Hearst boundaries would eventually be expanded again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

They got crucified for the tiny W3 changed they suggested...why would they go down that route again?

Look at the Washington Post map. They did it again!

I don't know the blocks by heart, but posters upthread suggested that they had greatly reduced the Murch/Hearst swap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens to the kids zoned for the new center city ms until it is built? Cardozo?

Yes, I'd imagine they'll continue at Cardozo. I am all for reopening middle schools, but without a timeline or plan for attracting kids (remember, Shaw & Garnett-Patterson were both closed for low enrollment), I remain skeptical.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah, I'm blaming our ANC, who has spoken to me three times. All three times, she told me, unprompted and a propos of nothing, that Crestwood is safe in the Deal/Wilson boundaries.

Crestwood will stay inbounds for Deal/Wilson until MacFarland is reopened. So, if that worries you, start working now to get a historical designation placed on MacFarland, identify any environmental issues that will require years of study, and perhaps locate a endangered species on the grounds.

Jeff, you're better than this. This is a dangerous recommendation -- given tongue-in-cheek, I know -- for some of the lunatics here to take upon themselves. They will, sadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dme.dc.gov/page/advisory-committee-draft-proposal-and-boundaries-june-2014

Seriously? DCPS hopes Bloomingdale will cross N. Capitol for Langley? What do they smoke there? Not a chance!

Welcome Mundo Verde! And 2 Rivers, and LAMB, and Yu Ying, and Stokes. Or private school.

Langley has long been considered the neighborhood school for Bloomingdale. What are you talking about?

1. No. JF Cook (where MV is going) was the school for kids on the west/NW side of N. Capitol, Emery served the east/NE side. Langely has only been there for a couple of years. It's where they put the kids from Emery and Shaed when those schools closed.

2. None of the gentrifying families that have moved into the neighborhood are willing to chance on Langley. As a group, a contingent of the "Bloomingdale Kids" families have talked about all going together to Seaton. We'll see if that works out, or if everyone peels off when better options arise.