Constructive ways to decrease Janney class size

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted smaller classes then they should have gone along with the shrinking of their boundaries.

The proposed boundary changes only impacted a small handful of changes--those proposed changes would not have made a dent in the current problem.

So what is your constructive suggestion?

[Anonymous]

I wish I had an idea besides to decrease PK classes. I didn't know that schools get more funding for PK kids vs K+ I am a current K parent and I'm in the classroom often helping the teacher. It is a LOT of kids, and it is hard to give them individual attention. For some kids it doesn't matter and they work well on their own. For others, like my son, he will zone out and not really focus if someone isn't helping him out. Because of this we do a lot of work at home after school. They are expected to learn so much in K (reading, writing, math) but I'm not sure the setting is conducive to those high goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that most MoCo elementary schools are even larger than this and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I agree with 01:48 above.

With that in mind I have two proposed options if you disagree with me and would like smaller class sizes.

First, I have always thought that a new elementary school closer to the Northern most boundaries of Janney makes sense so that families can walk to school. If you are taking a bus, and then Metro to get to your neighborhood school it seems like it is too far away. The next response frequently is that there is no land in this area. However, perhaps a swap for a mixed use space with DC Parks and Recreation makes sense, or conversion of other available land in the area. In the worst case scenario shared DCPS/DCPR space with some additional land added through imminent domain could be an option if it really is a priority.

Second, the conversion of Hearst to a regional Early Child Development Center seems very aligned with the history of the school (NAEYC certified for example). I also understand that the school was originally designed for ECD. A pre-K 4 to 2nd grade option could relieve potential overcrowding at Janney, Murch and even Eaton. If pre-k 3 were offered you would see high enrollment rates from Ward 3, it would be the only pre-k 3 in the Ward. The prospect of pre-k 3 at Hearst created significant buzz and would be a huge incentive to boost enrollment. Given the relatively small number of Janney IB kids that are accepted into Pre-k 4, many families are sending their children elsewhere for pre-k 4 anyway -- particularly if you do not have sibling preference for Janney. Hearst is one of the schools of choice for pre-k 4 for Janney parents who do not use a private daycare option.

I also think that a school for very young children makes sense. My child frequently tells me he is a little scared of the "big kids at school." To me it is very logical. He is only four and they are in fifth grade --to him they are giants!

Instead of the new elementary school, why not rezone that part of the Janney district to Mann?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that most MoCo elementary schools are even larger than this and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I agree with 01:48 above.

With that in mind I have two proposed options if you disagree with me and would like smaller class sizes.

First, I have always thought that a new elementary school closer to the Northern most boundaries of Janney makes sense so that families can walk to school. If you are taking a bus, and then Metro to get to your neighborhood school it seems like it is too far away. The next response frequently is that there is no land in this area. However, perhaps a swap for a mixed use space with DC Parks and Recreation makes sense, or conversion of other available land in the area. In the worst case scenario shared DCPS/DCPR space with some additional land added through imminent domain could be an option if it really is a priority.

Second, the conversion of Hearst to a regional Early Child Development Center seems very aligned with the history of the school (NAEYC certified for example). I also understand that the school was originally designed for ECD. A pre-K 4 to 2nd grade option could relieve potential overcrowding at Janney, Murch and even Eaton. If pre-k 3 were offered you would see high enrollment rates from Ward 3, it would be the only pre-k 3 in the Ward. The prospect of pre-k 3 at Hearst created significant buzz and would be a huge incentive to boost enrollment. Given the relatively small number of Janney IB kids that are accepted into Pre-k 4, many families are sending their children elsewhere for pre-k 4 anyway -- particularly if you do not have sibling preference for Janney. Hearst is one of the schools of choice for pre-k 4 for Janney parents who do not use a private daycare option.

I also think that a school for very young children makes sense. My child frequently tells me he is a little scared of the "big kids at school." To me it is very logical. He is only four and they are in fifth grade --to him they are giants!

Instead of the new elementary school, why not rezone that part of the Janney district to Mann?

because Hardy.

[Anonymous]

Here is my constructive advice as a very very longtime neighbor (equidistant to Janney and Murch) whose kids go to neither:

- change boundaries at the west and east ends to shift some kids to Mann, forever, and some kids to Murch* or Hearst.

- shift more than one block of homes this time.

- add a classrooms to the most impacted grades by sucking it up put some trailers on the pretty new outside space. Bummer, but there's absolutely DCPS recent precedent for this. At Murch. And Deal.

- scale back # of PK classrooms. Everyone loves to save money, even AU park association lawyer / parents. Too bad; you're being asked to write the check for one more year this year to St. Columba's / Franklin Montessori. Voila, more square footage classroom space now for K-5.

** Because Murch is ridiculously overcrowded itself, Murch's boundaries will need to change, too. The southern one to Hearst, maybe more of the eastern one to Lafayette. ***

[Anonymous]

No boundary changes will ever happen as far as Janney is concerned. And certainly not in time to impact the current kindergarten class or next year's entering K.

There is no room for expansion. The school is (will be) VERY reluctant to get rid of PK because they get almost twice the funding per PK pupil as they do for K and beyond.

There will be LARGE classes (close to 30 next year in both K and 1st). They will remain this way until those who can afford to pay for private (or who want smaller class sizes on principal) leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had an idea besides to decrease PK classes. I didn't know that schools get more funding for PK kids vs K+ I am a current K parent and I'm in the classroom often helping the teacher. It is a LOT of kids, and it is hard to give them individual attention. For some kids it doesn't matter and they work well on their own. For others, like my son, he will zone out and not really focus if someone isn't helping him out. Because of this we do a lot of work at home after school. They are expected to learn so much in K (reading, writing, math) but I'm not sure the setting is conducive to those high goals.

Good luck next year.
26 in K will mean 28 to 30 in first grade based on what has happened with enrollment numbers each year for the past 5 (and without the full time K second teacher. First grade gets a second teacher 2 days per week).

[Anonymous]

Rezone the Turtle Park area to Hearst. Simple as that. The walking distance from there to Hearst is only slightly longer than to Janney so it's not like you are taking kids from 3 blocks away. And you still keep Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No boundary changes will ever happen as far as Janney is concerned. And certainly not in time to impact the current kindergarten class or next year's entering K.

There is no room for expansion. The school is (will be) VERY reluctant to get rid of PK because they get almost twice the funding per PK pupil as they do for K and beyond.

There will be LARGE classes (close to 30 next year in both K and 1st). They will remain this way until those who can afford to pay for private (or who want smaller class sizes on principal) leave

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No boundary changes will ever happen as far as Janney is concerned. And certainly not in time to impact the current kindergarten class or next year's entering K.

There is no room for expansion. The school is (will be) VERY reluctant to get rid of PK because they get almost twice the funding per PK pupil as they do for K and beyond.

There will be LARGE classes (close to 30 next year in both K and 1st). They will remain this way until those who can afford to pay for private (or who want smaller class sizes on principal) leave

Good luck with that.

The only solution is to reassign parts of the neighborhood to Mann, Hearst, maybe Murch (will displace OOB so no net increase over time). But Janney parents will fight this tooth and nail as we saw in the recent boundary review. Thus, this is really a problem of Janney parents' own collective creation. I don't blame them, I wouldn't want to be reassigned either if I bought for Janney. But then the parents there just have to suck it up with the large classes and huge student body, if no-one is willing to be reassigned. Your choice, really. I don't see a third option.

[Anonymous]

Lobby to reopen the old Hardy School on Foxhall Road as an elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that most MoCo elementary schools are even larger than this and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I agree with 01:48 above.

With that in mind I have two proposed options if you disagree with me and would like smaller class sizes.

First, I have always thought that a new elementary school closer to the Northern most boundaries of Janney makes sense so that families can walk to school. If you are taking a bus, and then Metro to get to your neighborhood school it seems like it is too far away. The next response frequently is that there is no land in this area. However, perhaps a swap for a mixed use space with DC Parks and Recreation makes sense, or conversion of other available land in the area. In the worst case scenario shared DCPS/DCPR space with some additional land added through imminent domain could be an option if it really is a priority.

Second, the conversion of Hearst to a regional Early Child Development Center seems very aligned with the history of the school (NAEYC certified for example). I also understand that the school was originally designed for ECD. A pre-K 4 to 2nd grade option could relieve potential overcrowding at Janney, Murch and even Eaton. If pre-k 3 were offered you would see high enrollment rates from Ward 3, it would be the only pre-k 3 in the Ward. The prospect of pre-k 3 at Hearst created significant buzz and would be a huge incentive to boost enrollment. Given the relatively small number of Janney IB kids that are accepted into Pre-k 4, many families are sending their children elsewhere for pre-k 4 anyway -- particularly if you do not have sibling preference for Janney. Hearst is one of the schools of choice for pre-k 4 for Janney parents who do not use a private daycare option.

I also think that a school for very young children makes sense. My child frequently tells me he is a little scared of the "big kids at school." To me it is very logical. He is only four and they are in fifth grade --to him they are giants!

Instead of the new elementary school, why not rezone that part of the Janney district to Mann?

The new addition at Mann isn't going to increase capacity, it's going to replace trailers with permanent classrooms. Mann is going to be full as soon as the addition opens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rezone the Turtle Park area to Hearst. Simple as that. The walking distance from there to Hearst is only slightly longer than to Janney so it's not like you are taking kids from 3 blocks away. And you still keep Deal.

+1

Change the boundaries or stop complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rezone the Turtle Park area to Hearst. Simple as that. The walking distance from there to Hearst is only slightly longer than to Janney so it's not like you are taking kids from 3 blocks away. And you still keep Deal.

+1

Change the boundaries or stop complaining.

The proposed boundary changes would not have change the numbers much, and for kindergarten, it would not have impacted the numbers at all, as none of the current kindergarteners were among the very few families who would have been effected by the proposed change. So the current situation with the K classes has nothing to do with the communities rejection of the proposal to oust a few families from the school based on location. OP started this thread looking for constructive comments. A number of posters have provided really thoughtful replies, but the ones who keep saying that Janney community needs to live with its decision to reject the recent boundary proposals is not being constructive and also demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how minimal those proposed changes were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rezone the Turtle Park area to Hearst. Simple as that. The walking distance from there to Hearst is only slightly longer than to Janney so it's not like you are taking kids from 3 blocks away. And you still keep Deal.

+1

Change the boundaries or stop complaining.

The proposed boundary changes would not have change the numbers much, and for kindergarten, it would not have impacted the numbers at all, as none of the current kindergarteners were among the very few families who would have been effected by the proposed change. So the current situation with the K classes has nothing to do with the communities rejection of the proposal to oust a few families from the school based on location. OP started this thread looking for constructive comments. A number of posters have provided really thoughtful replies, but the ones who keep saying that Janney community needs to live with its decision to reject the recent boundary proposals is not being constructive and also demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how minimal those proposed changes were.

Sorry typed too quickly: "community's" not "communities."