Proposal is up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

Deal's always had Mt. Pleasant. Why would that be odd ball?

Odd by it's shape on the map.

That's Crestwood that was neatly cut out of Deal and Wilson boundaries. Biggest loser under this proposal (w/ 16th St H).

[Anonymous]

I completely agree with the concerns about overcrowding and OOB set asides. But looks like the set asides don't take effect until 2018 so maybe they just punted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

What do you meany by Cap Hill being a big winner with Eastern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those interested, Murch boundaries mostly reverted, except:

-a couple of blocks at the southern boundary go to Hearst
-north of Military and west of Connecticut goes to Lafayette (which makes sense, since Lafayette is projected to shrink over time and Murch is predicted to grow)

The only weird thing about the Murch-Lafayette switch is that the report also identifies Lafayette as an overcrowded school whose boundaries need to shrink.

Even weirder the Post map has a piece of Hearst moving to Murch. I assume that almost no public school kids live in that piece, but it seems strange given that they are shrinking the boundaries elsewhere. Why switch a current Murch family if you are going to replace them with a Hearst family? Maybe the Post just made a mistake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with the concerns about overcrowding and OOB set asides. But looks like the set asides don't take effect until 2018 so maybe they just punted it.

For elementary it is supposed to take effect in 2015.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

What do you meany by Cap Hill being a big winner with Eastern?

Not the PP, but I think they mean that Eastern used to also be fed from schools across the Anacostia and now it is only by-rights for three middle schools further west: Stuart Hobson, Eliot Hine and Jefferson. Although this is meaningless if those programs don't strengthen as they will remain almost entirely out of zone students anyway.

My guess is this change in Eastern feeder pattern will be highly controversial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with the concerns about overcrowding and OOB set asides. But looks like the set asides don't take effect until 2018 so maybe they just punted it.

For elementary it is supposed to take effect in 2015.

It is totally irresponsible that the recommendations don't address this. Pause button, please, Mr. Catania!

[Anonymous]

Then it makes no sense given the overcrowding issues. But hey, at least the citywide lottery thing is dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those interested, Murch boundaries mostly reverted, except:

-a couple of blocks at the southern boundary go to Hearst
-north of Military and west of Connecticut goes to Lafayette (which makes sense, since Lafayette is projected to shrink over time and Murch is predicted to grow)

The only weird thing about the Murch-Lafayette switch is that the report also identifies Lafayette as an overcrowded school whose boundaries need to shrink.

Even weirder the Post map has a piece of Hearst moving to Murch. I assume that almost no public school kids live in that piece, but it seems strange given that they are shrinking the boundaries elsewhere. Why switch a current Murch family if you are going to replace them with a Hearst family? Maybe the Post just made a mistake?

I think they swapped a very dense few blocks of Murch in North Cleveland Park for a sparse few blocks of Hearst in Forest Hills. So way more kids going from Murch to Hearst than the other direction. But I agree that it's a little weird--why switch those couple of blocks in Forest Hills to Murch?

In terms of Murch/Lafayette, I think the premise is that Lafayette will be renovated by the time the new boundaries take effect, and over time its population will go down as Murch's goes up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

Deal's always had Mt. Pleasant. Why would that be odd ball?

Odd by it's shape on the map.

Did you not see the shape of the map before? This is HUGE improvements.

It's not neighborhoods that are mapped out for middle and high, it's existing elementary maps

[Anonymous]

Here's what I like -

- By right attendance for PK3 and PK4 limited to those zoned for Title 1 school

- Cohorts are kept together - if you attend the school, you attend the feeder school (regardless of where you live)

- OOB set asides and that they increase for MS and HS entry years

Concerns -

- how to implement 10% set aside for OOB - will it all be concentrated in the upper grades?

- still think specialized schools should be available to all as opposed to having a boundary or neighborhood preference

- think they should have been more aggressive with student continuation and transfer policies


Some questions -

- Are they redefining proximity? P. 5 talks about a more than one-mile walking distance for ES gets you proximity pref to closest DCPS.

- How do you know if a school meets the at-risk criteria in Rec 15?

- What's a qualifying student in recs 18 and 19?

- Can't decide if it's 2nd grade or 3rd grade students in 15-16 who get screwed

[Anonymous]

The whole report is pretty tame -- and strikes me as reasonably related to what a "boundary review" should have been from the very beginning. All of the weird, risky, contested stuff is out.

The only problem being, as others have mentioned, the OOB set-asides. But that only affects schools that are overcrowded, and there really aren't that many. If DCPS is serious about set asides for those schools, it is going to have to be REALLY serious about "setting aside" a serious amount of money to add square footage to those schools.

[Anonymous]

Would Shepherd Elementary eventually feed to new north W4 middle school or stay at Deal with Lafayette?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those interested, Murch boundaries mostly reverted, except:

-a couple of blocks at the southern boundary go to Hearst
-north of Military and west of Connecticut goes to Lafayette (which makes sense, since Lafayette is projected to shrink over time and Murch is predicted to grow)

The only weird thing about the Murch-Lafayette switch is that the report also identifies Lafayette as an overcrowded school whose boundaries need to shrink.

Even weirder the Post map has a piece of Hearst moving to Murch. I assume that almost no public school kids live in that piece, but it seems strange given that they are shrinking the boundaries elsewhere. Why switch a current Murch family if you are going to replace them with a Hearst family? Maybe the Post just made a mistake?

I think they swapped a very dense few blocks of Murch in North Cleveland Park for a sparse few blocks of Hearst in Forest Hills. So way more kids going from Murch to Hearst than the other direction. But I agree that it's a little weird--why switch those couple of blocks in Forest Hills to Murch?

In terms of Murch/Lafayette, I think the premise is that Lafayette will be renovated by the time the new boundaries take effect, and over time its population will go down as Murch's goes up.

I get the premise, I just don't believe the data. Lafayette is overcrowded and will continue to draw families who will move into the boundaries. Moving a piece of Murch will only make that worse. In any case, it looks like a small piece, and I doubt either Murch or Lafayette will squawk much at the move.

[Anonymous]

Looks like a huge expansion of SH boundary, but Brent still missed out. Of course, many of the kids with proposed new rights could have gotten there through Watkins.