Mayor Bowser to Make Education Policy and Personnel Announcement - Boundary Decision?

[Anonymous]

Look for my 16th St Heights SFH on the market this weekend!

[Anonymous]

Alice Deal enrollment over the years (with citations)

2009-10 - 866 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/DCPS-School-Profile-DEAL-Jan-11.pdf)
2010-11 - 867 (http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/Learn-About-Schools/DCPS-Middle-School-Guide-2010-2011.pdf)
2011-12 - 1014 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/deal2012.pdf)
2012-13 - 1165 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/405_2013.pdf)
2013-14 - 1248 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Deal+Middle+School)
2014-15 - 1305 (http://alicedeal.org/faq-the-deal-facts/)

The plan Mayor Bowser just "tweaked" was supposed to stem this flow. I fear she may be pouring water back into the boat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look for my 16th St Heights SFH on the market this weekend!

This whole mess didn't seem to affect prices negatively when things were looking like they were going to change. What makes you think prices are going to raise because of it now?

That said, it is a great neighborhood and a good investment... but wrong forum for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alice Deal enrollment over the years (with citations)

2009-10 - 866 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/DCPS-School-Profile-DEAL-Jan-11.pdf)
2010-11 - 867 (http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/Learn-About-Schools/DCPS-Middle-School-Guide-2010-2011.pdf)
2011-12 - 1014 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/deal2012.pdf)
2012-13 - 1165 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/405_2013.pdf)
2013-14 - 1248 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Deal+Middle+School)
2014-15 - 1305 (http://alicedeal.org/faq-the-deal-facts/)

The plan Mayor Bowser just "tweaked" was supposed to stem this flow. I fear she may be pouring water back into the boat.

Great, now why don't you post up the stats for Janney's growth? Want to know which of the Deal feeders is causing the Deal population to increase? Here's a hint, it's WOTP and leads the JKLM acronym. Lafayette too, although census predictions point to declining enrollment there over the next 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.

Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.

Hyperbole, really. Some of you seem to ascribe a lot of change-making ability to a small group of families in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights, maybe a few dozen families in total? Crestwood and 16th St Heights have small populations of school-aged kids. They will not make or break MacFarland.

I am constantly hearing about how Petworth is rapidly gentrifying. If that is true, then that will be what drives the future of MacFarland. It's a far larger and far more dense area of the new MacFarland boundary than these other, more western neighborhoods.

Agreed. Plus, some of us in 16th St Heights may actually want to send our kids to a middle school a half mile away instead of across the park. Just make it good enough, and I'll be happy to be there with our Petworth neighbors.

Fine, let's make a bet. I'm the poster who thinks development will slow. You think it won't. Let's pick a measuring stick we can agree on, and we'll revisit where we stand over the next few years. What should we use?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to build successful new schools without critical mass of sufficiently prepared students. This "tweak" reduces the pool of students used to form critical mass.

Agree. Also, since fewer students will need to attend MacFarland, there is less pressure for DCPS to invest in developing the school. I predict development will slow substantially now.

Hyperbole, really. Some of you seem to ascribe a lot of change-making ability to a small group of families in Crestwood and 16th Street Heights, maybe a few dozen families in total? Crestwood and 16th St Heights have small populations of school-aged kids. They will not make or break MacFarland.

I am constantly hearing about how Petworth is rapidly gentrifying. If that is true, then that will be what drives the future of MacFarland. It's a far larger and far more dense area of the new MacFarland boundary than these other, more western neighborhoods.

Agreed. Plus, some of us in 16th St Heights may actually want to send our kids to a middle school a half mile away instead of across the park. Just make it good enough, and I'll be happy to be there with our Petworth neighbors.

Fine, let's make a bet. I'm the poster who thinks development will slow. You think it won't. Let's pick a measuring stick we can agree on, and we'll revisit where we stand over the next few years. What should we use?

Funding plans for the new middle school. I think the major renovation money goes in the 2017 budget with some planning dollars in 2016. I'd consider anything later than that to be slowing. Deal? (pun intended)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So beyond the Post article, anyone have a lead on where we see the tweaks in writing so that we can determine if the Post captured the breadth of the grandfathering accurately?

I don't see a press release yet. It should be posted here when it is released:

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Press+Releases+and+Announcements/Press+Releases

And/or here:

http://mayor.dc.gov/newsroom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alice Deal enrollment over the years (with citations)

2009-10 - 866 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/DCPS-School-Profile-DEAL-Jan-11.pdf)
2010-11 - 867 (http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/Learn-About-Schools/DCPS-Middle-School-Guide-2010-2011.pdf)
2011-12 - 1014 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/deal2012.pdf)
2012-13 - 1165 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/405_2013.pdf)
2013-14 - 1248 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Deal+Middle+School)
2014-15 - 1305 (http://alicedeal.org/faq-the-deal-facts/)

The plan Mayor Bowser just "tweaked" was supposed to stem this flow. I fear she may be pouring water back into the boat.

Great, now why don't you post up the stats for Janney's growth? Want to know which of the Deal feeders is causing the Deal population to increase? Here's a hint, it's WOTP and leads the JKLM acronym. Lafayette too, although census predictions point to declining enrollment there over the next 10 years.

I don't get your point. I don't really care how much each individual feeder school is bloating Deal's enrollment; I just want the enrollment to drop. You seem like you might have some vendetta against Janney. If your solution to Deal's overenrollment is for DCPS to build another middle school in Upper Northwest, I'm sure all the people who live there will be very happy. But IMHO that seems like a poor approach. Also, I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to what would be perceived as even more favors for Upper Northwest.

Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, let's make a bet. I'm the poster who thinks development will slow. You think it won't. Let's pick a measuring stick we can agree on, and we'll revisit where we stand over the next few years. What should we use?

Funding plans for the new middle school. I think the major renovation money goes in the 2017 budget with some planning dollars in 2016. I'd consider anything later than that to be slowing. Deal? (pun intended)

Works for me, but let's make it even more specific. Do you have any links to where there's been discussion about those current 2016 and 2017 budget plans? Have there been any targets set for re-opening?

[Anonymous]

Sucks for sw, which seems to still have lost access to wilson.

[Anonymous]

SW should not feed to Wilson. It's far away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, let's make a bet. I'm the poster who thinks development will slow. You think it won't. Let's pick a measuring stick we can agree on, and we'll revisit where we stand over the next few years. What should we use?

Funding plans for the new middle school. I think the major renovation money goes in the 2017 budget with some planning dollars in 2016. I'd consider anything later than that to be slowing. Deal? (pun intended)

Works for me, but let's make it even more specific. Do you have any links to where there's been discussion about those current 2016 and 2017 budget plans? Have there been any targets set for re-opening?

I don't think there's been a formal date set (or discussed) by the city. I think the implementation plan from former mayor Gray just said that it would be address in the FY16 budget.

The only faster thing than what I suggested would be to get full construction funding in FY16, and that seems unrealistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alice Deal enrollment over the years (with citations)

2009-10 - 866 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/DCPS-School-Profile-DEAL-Jan-11.pdf)
2010-11 - 867 (http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/Learn-About-Schools/DCPS-Middle-School-Guide-2010-2011.pdf)
2011-12 - 1014 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/deal2012.pdf)
2012-13 - 1165 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/405_2013.pdf)
2013-14 - 1248 (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Deal+Middle+School)
2014-15 - 1305 (http://alicedeal.org/faq-the-deal-facts/)

The plan Mayor Bowser just "tweaked" was supposed to stem this flow. I fear she may be pouring water back into the boat.

Great, now why don't you post up the stats for Janney's growth? Want to know which of the Deal feeders is causing the Deal population to increase? Here's a hint, it's WOTP and leads the JKLM acronym. Lafayette too, although census predictions point to declining enrollment there over the next 10 years.

I don't get your point. I don't really care how much each individual feeder school is bloating Deal's enrollment; I just want the enrollment to drop. You seem like you might have some vendetta against Janney. If your solution to Deal's overenrollment is for DCPS to build another middle school in Upper Northwest, I'm sure all the people who live there will be very happy. But IMHO that seems like a poor approach. Also, I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to what would be perceived as even more favors for Upper Northwest.

Look, the only viable answer to Deal overcrowding is to reduce enrollment. And unless we're prepared to go to some crazy all-city lottery, that means neighborhoods with other middle school options will need to be shifted out of Deal's orbit. For better or worse, that puts places like Crestwood and Shepherd Park on the bubble. Whatever political favors got called in to press Mayor Bowser to tweak the plan are just temporary bandaids. Real solutions, and real progress for our city's middle schools, just got delayed by another 5-10 years.

Yeah because cutting the 12 kids from Crestwood and the 30 from Shepherd are going to make things A-ok at Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, let's make a bet. I'm the poster who thinks development will slow. You think it won't. Let's pick a measuring stick we can agree on, and we'll revisit where we stand over the next few years. What should we use?

Funding plans for the new middle school. I think the major renovation money goes in the 2017 budget with some planning dollars in 2016. I'd consider anything later than that to be slowing. Deal? (pun intended)

Works for me, but let's make it even more specific. Do you have any links to where there's been discussion about those current 2016 and 2017 budget plans? Have there been any targets set for re-opening?

I don't think there's been a formal date set (or discussed) by the city. I think the implementation plan from former mayor Gray just said that it would be address in the FY16 budget.

The only faster thing than what I suggested would be to get full construction funding in FY16, and that seems unrealistic.

OK, fair enough. Let's go with your proposal. I agree there will be some planning money in the 2016 budget, but I say 2017 will just have more planning money. Real substantial renovation money won't come until the 2018 or 2019 budget, and we won't have the school open before 2019.

[Anonymous]

Can someone clarify? Does the grandfathering extension to 2022 only affect those in Crestwood and 16th St. Heights or is this across the city?