Which jklmm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ this posting went from interesting to slightly funny to absolutely depressing. Demeaning tiny elementary kids who go to fine schools is deplorable. It seems like the parents are really the bullies. How do you discipline your kids when they berate others?

DCPS is one of the lower performing districts in the country. There is plenty of work that needs to be done to improve the schools. The ones that are being discussed are highly desirable within this system.

We always wanted to sent our child to public school for the early years because of the exposure to different kinds of people who share our values that a quality education should be available to all. What I am seeing here is unchecked privilege and a sense of entitlement that is sickening and shouldn't be tolerated in any school system, let alone a public system.

We are seriously thinking of an elite private because the values of humility, citizenship, and commitment to diversity may be much stronger than anything I am seeing on these boards.

OMG, now I am really laughing. Good luck finding that humility at your elite private.

While we wouldn't opt for private school, I don't disagree with this poster. The upper NW DC folks are, to a large degree, insufferable and come across as what can only be described as modestly elite. Its laughable. I contend the boundary issue showed the true colors of my neighbors, hiding behind the DC liberal commitment to public education but attacking like a rabid wolf at any attempt to level the playing field.

Look, I live in NW DC and agree that there are many insufferable people up here when it comes to boundaries (we are IB for Hearst so believe me, I know). But who do you think attends the elite privates? Largely rich kids from upper NW DC and MD who are so elitist that the top notch public schools in their neighborhood aren't even good enough for them. So it's hard to imagine that it would be a good strategy to go to an elite private school as a way to escape insufferable NW DC people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
At the risk of having this thread veer off into another direction, I want to respond to the reference to the "crazy Chevy Chase anti-street light lady." People want street lights, but a number of DC residents were upset when DDOT began replacing street lights with exremely bright orange high-intensity bulbs that made residential blocks start to look like high security prison yards and forced folks to invest in new window treatements just to be able to sleep at night. People want lighting for safety, but don't feel the need to have such brightness to read a novel in the middle of the street at midnight. It was also strange that DDOT wanted to drastically increase brightness when other localities were becoming more sensitive to night-time light pollution and were trying to reduce glare and adjust brightness. Also, DDOT had made a commitment to install more historically compatitble lighting in historic districts, but often throws up whatever they seem to have on the truck. I applaud people who care about the character and appearance of their neighborhoods -- that's how desirable neighborhoods are created and sustained.

They put in energy efficient LED lights. Thanks for the post I was unaware the crazy Chevy Chase lady read DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
At the risk of having this thread veer off into another direction, I want to respond to the reference to the "crazy Chevy Chase anti-street light lady." People want street lights, but a number of DC residents were upset when DDOT began replacing street lights with exremely bright orange high-intensity bulbs that made residential blocks start to look like high security prison yards and forced folks to invest in new window treatements just to be able to sleep at night. People want lighting for safety, but don't feel the need to have such brightness to read a novel in the middle of the street at midnight. It was also strange that DDOT wanted to drastically increase brightness when other localities were becoming more sensitive to night-time light pollution and were trying to reduce glare and adjust brightness. Also, DDOT had made a commitment to install more historically compatitble lighting in historic districts, but often throws up whatever they seem to have on the truck. I applaud people who care about the character and appearance of their neighborhoods -- that's how desirable neighborhoods are created and sustained.

They put in energy efficient LED lights. Thanks for the post I was unaware the crazy Chevy Chase lady read DCUM.

And then agreed to reduce the brightness and shield them as I recall. Also, it wasn't just in Chevy Chase; folks in Woodley and Cleveland Pk also pushed back on the much brighter lights. Not everyone wants to pretend to live along I-395 or next to a prison wall.

[Anonymous]

Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
At the risk of having this thread veer off into another direction, I want to respond to the reference to the "crazy Chevy Chase anti-street light lady." People want street lights, but a number of DC residents were upset when DDOT began replacing street lights with exremely bright orange high-intensity bulbs that made residential blocks start to look like high security prison yards and forced folks to invest in new window treatements just to be able to sleep at night. People want lighting for safety, but don't feel the need to have such brightness to read a novel in the middle of the street at midnight. It was also strange that DDOT wanted to drastically increase brightness when other localities were becoming more sensitive to night-time light pollution and were trying to reduce glare and adjust brightness. Also, DDOT had made a commitment to install more historically compatitble lighting in historic districts, but often throws up whatever they seem to have on the truck. I applaud people who care about the character and appearance of their neighborhoods -- that's how desirable neighborhoods are created and sustained.

They put in energy efficient LED lights. Thanks for the post I was unaware the crazy Chevy Chase lady read DCUM.

And then agreed to reduce the brightness and shield them as I recall. Also, it wasn't just in Chevy Chase; folks in Woodley and Cleveland Pk also pushed back on the much brighter lights. Not everyone wants to pretend to live along I-395 or next to a prison wall.

are you too poor for blackout shades? Anyway, this is a school discussion. Go post on Real Estate! You are proving my point that NWDC citizens are largely insufferable. I think the most vocal in the boundary discussion are hanging on a thread financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

So Janney can be 1000? Great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

It is going to Catholic Charities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

It is going to Catholic Charities.

Uh-oh, looks like those paying the Janney premium are in for a surprise.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone quantify this supposed premium?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

So Janney can be 1000? Great idea.

I don't want Janney to be 1000. Janney should really serve AU Park proper, which means moving the eastern boundary back across Wisconsin and moving the southern boundary northward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

So Janney can be 1000? Great idea.

I don't want Janney to be 1000. Janney should really serve AU Park proper, which means moving the eastern boundary back across Wisconsin and moving the southern boundary northward.

+1 maybe bowser will include this type of thing in her boundary tweaking, you can't have more kids in that school building and meet the mandated 10%. It should be AU proper.

[Anonymous]

Has there been discussion between Janney and St. Ann's or the Archdiocese ? Interesting notion .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

So Janney can be 1000? Great idea.

I don't want Janney to be 1000. Janney should really serve AU Park proper, which means moving the eastern boundary back across Wisconsin and moving the southern boundary northward.

+1 maybe bowser will include this type of thing in her boundary tweaking, you can't have more kids in that school building and meet the mandated 10%. It should be AU proper.

It does seem unfair to kick neighborhood families out of Janney for quota students. Liberal social engineering run amok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

So Janney can be 1000? Great idea.

I don't want Janney to be 1000. Janney should really serve AU Park proper, which means moving the eastern boundary back across Wisconsin and moving the southern boundary northward.

+1 maybe bowser will include this type of thing in her boundary tweaking, you can't have more kids in that school building and meet the mandated 10%. It should be AU proper.

It does seem unfair to kick neighborhood families out of Janney for quota students. Liberal social engineering run amok.

There are houses in the Turtle Park area that are just about as close to Hearst as they are to Janney. The border can easily be adjusted there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Janney ever considered acquiring and expanding into the now-closed St. Ann's school, which is just behind Janney?

So Janney can be 1000? Great idea.

I don't want Janney to be 1000. Janney should really serve AU Park proper, which means moving the eastern boundary back across Wisconsin and moving the southern boundary northward.

+1 maybe bowser will include this type of thing in her boundary tweaking, you can't have more kids in that school building and meet the mandated 10%. It should be AU proper.

It does seem unfair to kick neighborhood families out of Janney for quota students. Liberal social engineering run amok.

There are houses in the Turtle Park area that are just about as close to Hearst as they are to Janney. The border can easily be adjusted there.

Or Mann would be a logical fit.