Which jklmm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

and a more palatable switch for families than Hearst, as Janney and Mann are of comparable quality. However, then coming out of Mann you would get stuck with Hardy instead of Deal for middle school. The quality gap between Deal and Hardy may be wider than than between Janney and Hearst.

[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.

Here we go with the ugly NWDC parents discussed earlier in the thread. You're a hideous person pp!

[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.

Here we go with the ugly NWDC parents discussed earlier in the thread. You're a hideous person pp!

Obviously your interests aren't directly at stake. Kicking kids out of their neighborhood schools to meet some quota is directly reflective of the forced bussing strategy that was tried in many public school systems during the late 60s into the 70s. And we know how that all turned out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here we go with the ugly NWDC parents discussed earlier in the thread. You're a hideous person pp!

Obviously your interests aren't directly at stake. Kicking kids out of their neighborhood schools to meet some quota is directly reflective of the forced bussing strategy that was tried in many public school systems during the late 60s into the 70s. And we know how that all turned out.

Yes, yes, we are all aware of your "f*ck the poor!" mantra. Spare us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here we go with the ugly NWDC parents discussed earlier in the thread. You're a hideous person pp!

Obviously your interests aren't directly at stake. Kicking kids out of their neighborhood schools to meet some quota is directly reflective of the forced bussing strategy that was tried in many public school systems during the late 60s into the 70s. And we know how that all turned out.

Yes, yes, we are all aware of your "f*ck the poor!" mantra. Spare us.

Easy to pontificate from your little row house in Petworth. I'm sorry that your "clever" real estate buy in some once-hip area doesn't look so smart now that you have school age kids and sh---y local schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here we go with the ugly NWDC parents discussed earlier in the thread. You're a hideous person pp!

Obviously your interests aren't directly at stake. Kicking kids out of their neighborhood schools to meet some quota is directly reflective of the forced bussing strategy that was tried in many public school systems during the late 60s into the 70s. And we know how that all turned out.

Yes, yes, we are all aware of your "f*ck the poor!" mantra. Spare us.

Easy to pontificate from your little row house in Petworth. I'm sorry that your "clever" real estate buy in some once-hip area doesn't look so smart now that you have school age kids and sh---y local schools.

Wow! You make many assumptions based on an anonymous post! I do not live in Petworth. You are crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If "level the playng field" is code for taking a long settled expecation of attending a good school and simply redistributing it to someone else, then I can see why people oppose it. The emphasis should be, as David Catania argued, in improving the underperforming schools to bring them up to the level of the best, rather than forcing people to attend a poorer performing school than what they previously had a right to attend. This is why some folks who had until now been in-bounds for Deal, the city's best middle school, are upset to be shunted to Hardy, a mediocre distant second-tier school. It's also the case that people pay a "Janney premium" (i.e., an inflated price based on a local school) to be in a great elementary disrict, and moving boundaries interferes with settled expectations that have driven decisions on where to buy.

PS- I love those who say they are so turned off by the "rabid wolfs" in Upper NW, yet will claw and clamor to send their kids to school with Upper NW kids.

I am the rabid wolf poster who currently lives in boundary for a upper NW school our children have attended for the last 4 years. This is the last one; we are getting out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If "level the playng field" is code for taking a long settled expecation of attending a good school and simply redistributing it to someone else, then I can see why people oppose it. The emphasis should be, as David Catania argued, in improving the underperforming schools to bring them up to the level of the best, rather than forcing people to attend a poorer performing school than what they previously had a right to attend. This is why some folks who had until now been in-bounds for Deal, the city's best middle school, are upset to be shunted to Hardy, a mediocre distant second-tier school. It's also the case that people pay a "Janney premium" (i.e., an inflated price based on a local school) to be in a great elementary disrict, and moving boundaries interferes with settled expectations that have driven decisions on where to buy.

PS- I love those who say they are so turned off by the "rabid wolfs" in Upper NW, yet will claw and clamor to send their kids to school with Upper NW kids.

I am the rabid wolf poster who currently lives in boundary for a upper NW school our children have attended for the last 4 years. This is the last one; we are getting out.

18:42 here. Forget to mention since you brought Catania into the mix, I campaigned for him so I am not coding anything. Level the playing field means = I believe in neighborhood schools 100% all things being equal. i live in one of these neighborhoods you talk about claw and clamoring to get into; it is embarrassing to me to be associated with liberal elitist who don't give a shit about anyone except themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your last sentence, why do you think that? I think the loudest people are those with most at stake, which among Janney families is not those who are most financially stretched, but rather those who live near the boundary and could be rezoned if rezoning were carried out (which it almost was, in the first DME proposal). I think the families living in that small slice saw the proposal and said holy sh--, didn't even think that was on the table. We need to fight this! I'm not a Janney parent but that's my read.

[Anonymous]

It's often the case that those with the most direct interest -- or the most on the line -- will be loudest and most active. That's simple human nature and the basis of lots of forms of social order, including our legal system.

[Anonymous]

So-- what is the answer? How will Janney accommodate the mandatory 10%?

What is the plan if not to change the boundary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So-- what is the answer? How will Janney accommodate the mandatory 10%?

What is the plan if not to change the boundary?

Get a waiver on the grounds that the school is already over-capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So-- what is the answer? How will Janney accommodate the mandatory 10%?

What is the plan if not to change the boundary?

Get a waiver on the grounds that the school is already over-capacity.

There are other schools at or much more over-capacity. Why should Janney be treated differently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So-- what is the answer? How will Janney accommodate the mandatory 10%?

What is the plan if not to change the boundary?

Get a waiver on the grounds that the school is already over-capacity.

There are other schools at or much more over-capacity. Why should Janney be treated differently?

This is a good question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So-- what is the answer? How will Janney accommodate the mandatory 10%?

What is the plan if not to change the boundary?

Get a waiver on the grounds that the school is already over-capacity.

There are other schools at or much more over-capacity. Why should Janney be treated differently?

So, what's the plan for good neighborhood schools that are over capacity? The only lever is to reduce OOB enrollment, but some of these schools have barely any OOB students. So where does that leave those same schools after they've tried to tweak their boundaries to accommodate some new set aside? Eventually tell neighborhood families to send their kids EOTP?