Brent-Tyler-Payne and Choice Set J (Option A)

[Anonymous]

I suspect some may think Brent is failing poor kids because it principally serves high-SES families from Capitol Hill, resulting in a FARMs rate now approaching single digits. Brent nonetheless opened up multiple seats to OOB families for grades K and above this year. Not sure what else the administration is supposed to be doing to fix other failing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brent has been singled out for discipline because of the "flip" from lower income to higher income, and from black to white.

Brent gets a failing mark for the category "maintaining socio-economic diversity" and therefore must be shaken up. Actually, I am fine with OOB set-asides for kids from failing schools. But since the school is already full to the gills with in boundary families ( it is a tiny school ), the boundaries will need to be shrunk to fit in those OOB students. SO Brent, here are your choices: shrink your boundaries and accept some mandatory OOB students OR get in the choice set.

That is hardly Brent's/DCPS's fault-- DC zoning and planing could make more of an effort to create low-income housing in Brent's area. We have the Ellen Wilson place, but can't think of any other mixed income housing developments. Any plans in the works? What about that Friendship house development right by Eastern Market metro?

I hear this repeated from time to time and don't understand what people think the Offices of Zoning and Planning or anyone else should be doing. Aside from the former Hine site, which is not IB for Brent, and DCHA projects on the drawing board for the former Capper site, where would you propose this mixed income development be sited? It's not like there is large parcel owned by the DC Government other than Brent. So, are you advocating seizing private homes within the Historic District by means of eminent domain and then tearing them down? Laying waste to Garfield Park (Marion, Providence and Folger parks are federal property, as is Seward Square)? Convincing Mayor Gray to take over the Congressional surface parking lots and former page dormitory as if he was Putin taking control of Crimea? Surrounding the new Mormon Church on Seventh Street until they capitulate? Just wondering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I was simply seeking information concerning whether the DME moved the goalposts on the Brent choice set within just a day or two of releasing the policy proposal. For example, did the Cluster somehow prevail on Abagail Smith's shop to offer up shifting Payne out of the Peabody-Watkins choice set? Who proposed the Brent-Tyler-Payne pairing? Why has there been no public notice that a Brent-Tyler-Payne pairing is on the table? What is the quid pro quo?

Only on DCUM. OP, you went from hearing from someone who heard from someone who attended a meeting where was a "discussion" where it "seemed" like pairing Brent/Payne was an option. Now, you are ticked off that there has been no public notice that it is "on the table"?

They have repeatedly said that every option will be considered. There's your public notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brent has been singled out for discipline because of the "flip" from lower income to higher income, and from black to white.

Brent gets a failing mark for the category "maintaining socio-economic diversity" and therefore must be shaken up. Actually, I am fine with OOB set-asides for kids from failing schools. But since the school is already full to the gills with in boundary families ( it is a tiny school ), the boundaries will need to be shrunk to fit in those OOB students. SO Brent, here are your choices: shrink your boundaries and accept some mandatory OOB students OR get in the choice set.

That is hardly Brent's/DCPS's fault-- DC zoning and planing could make more of an effort to create low-income housing in Brent's area. We have the Ellen Wilson place, but can't think of any other mixed income housing developments. Any plans in the works? What about that Friendship house development right by Eastern Market metro?

I hear this repeated from time to time and don't understand what people think the Offices of Zoning and Planning or anyone else should be doing. Aside from the former Hine site, which is not IB for Brent, and DCHA projects on the drawing board for the former Capper site, where would you propose this mixed income development be sited? It's not like there is large parcel owned by the DC Government other than Brent. So, are you advocating seizing private homes within the Historic District by means of eminent domain and then tearing them down? Laying waste to Garfield Park (Marion, Providence and Folger parks are federal property, as is Seward Square)? Convincing Mayor Gray to take over the Congressional surface parking lots and former page dormitory as if he was Putin taking control of Crimea? Surrounding the new Mormon Church on Seventh Street until they capitulate? Just wondering.

I also assume that DC will then have to require that only people with kids aged 2-4 are eligible for that housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brent has been singled out for discipline because of the "flip" from lower income to higher income, and from black to white.

Brent gets a failing mark for the category "maintaining socio-economic diversity" and therefore must be shaken up. Actually, I am fine with OOB set-asides for kids from failing schools. But since the school is already full to the gills with in boundary families ( it is a tiny school ), the boundaries will need to be shrunk to fit in those OOB students. SO Brent, here are your choices: shrink your boundaries and accept some mandatory OOB students OR get in the choice set.

That is hardly Brent's/DCPS's fault-- DC zoning and planing could make more of an effort to create low-income housing in Brent's area. We have the Ellen Wilson place, but can't think of any other mixed income housing developments. Any plans in the works? What about that Friendship house development right by Eastern Market metro?

I hear this repeated from time to time and don't understand what people think the Offices of Zoning and Planning or anyone else should be doing. Aside from the former Hine site, which is not IB for Brent, and DCHA projects on the drawing board for the former Capper site, where would you propose this mixed income development be sited? It's not like there is large parcel owned by the DC Government other than Brent. So, are you advocating seizing private homes within the Historic District by means of eminent domain and then tearing them down? Laying waste to Garfield Park (Marion, Providence and Folger parks are federal property, as is Seward Square)? Convincing Mayor Gray to take over the Congressional surface parking lots and former page dormitory as if he was Putin taking control of Crimea? Surrounding the new Mormon Church on Seventh Street until they capitulate? Just wondering.

Actually, I think you are wring. I think hine is IB for Brent. If not, it is only off by one block and could easily be placed in Brent boundary.

[Anonymous]

I'll defer to those more knowledgeable, but I recall hearing at one point that the Hine project will have something like 50 units set aside for low income residents, although some may be lost if one of the buildings is converted to a hotel. If the development site is in fact already IB for Brent the irony could be that the boundary might need to be redrawn to a smaller size because of overcrowding issues and the impact of right to attend for PK or 10 percent low performing school set aside requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll defer to those more knowledgeable, but I recall hearing at one point that the Hine project will have something like 50 units set aside for low income residents, although some may be lost if one of the buildings is converted to a hotel. If the development site is in fact already IB for Brent the irony could be that the boundary might need to be redrawn to a smaller size because of overcrowding issues and the impact of right to attend for PK or 10 percent low performing school set aside requirements.

Of course, at this rate they won't break ground until 2020.

[Anonymous]